[Zac Bears]: 23rd regular meeting, Medford City Council, December 16th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Councilor Scarpelli is not able to be here with us tonight. He's not feeling well. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. We have a resolution under suspension from Councilor Leming. I recognize Councilor Leming to move to take it.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to take the resolution under suspension, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Resolution to commend the crew of Ladder 2 for their heroic actions on November 7th, 2025, offered by Councilor Leming. Whereas, Lieutenant Daniel J. Marino, Firefighter Sean M. McFeely, and Firefighter Tyrell T. Patton rescued two persons at a structure fire on November 7th, 2025, as detailed in Chief Todd Evans' letter, and closed. Whereas their actions reflect great credit on themselves, Ladder 2, the Medford Fire Department, and the City of Medford, be it therefore resolved that the Medford City Council commend the crew of Ladder 2 for their bravery, professionalism, commitment to their position and their oath, and dedication to saving lives. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Lizara. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And yeah, on behalf of the council and as the president, I want to thank all of you for serving our city, keeping us safe and saving lives, not just in this incident, but all the time. We do have a citation here to present. I see we have a couple of family members here tonight. If you'd like to come up, we can, you know, Councilor Leming can present this to you. We can take a photo. Colleagues are welcome. But on behalf of all of us, we really just thank you so much for this and for everything you do for our community. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you again. 25187. Resolution to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the West Medford Community Center. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we celebrate the West Medford Community Center on its 90th anniversary and its role as a cornerstone of resilience, service, and community building for our city. The WMCC is at the heart of Medford's past, present, and future, and we honor and celebrate every person who has built this incredible legacy and history. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to my colleagues. Thank you, Councilor Tseng for joining me on this resolution. You know, the West Bedford Community Center, I went to after school there in elementary school and have been going back since. And it really serves kids, adults, elders in all aspects. It's a really wonderful, wonderful part of our community. They had a gala over the weekend to celebrate their 90th anniversary. And that's part of why we're We're putting this on the agenda. I wanna thank Lisa Crossman, Terry Carter. And if I go through any more names, the list will be too long. So both of them for their work for the West Bedford Community Center, representing so many others who are working on their projects every day, and also who have worked on them for 90 years. Got a new building, they got a new path. Mississippi River Road's improved, and I think it really goes to show its central place, not just in events and community, but also it's a physical representation of all of the work that so many people have put into it, both the building and now the path to Duggar Park and their own tennis courts. So next step is more improvements to Duggar Park, I think. But West Benford Community Center is just really wonderful and I'm going to get this citation over to Lisa and Terry and everyone else over there in due course. Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. 25188 offered by President Bears and Councilor Tseng, resolution to commend Vice President Collins for her outstanding service. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we commend Vice President Collins for her outstanding service on the Medford City Council from 2022 to 2026. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. I think it goes without saying from what everyone else just said, we're in big trouble. It seems that our balance and our calm may be leaving us. So we're all gonna have to work really hard to ask ourselves what would Kit Collins do. And I really echo the comments of my fellow colleagues. I think kids' principled, detail-oriented, determined, tough leadership has gotten this council through some hard meetings. It's gotten good policy passed, good ordinances passed. It's gotten all of us, made all of us better. hard discussions that have made our city better, that has made real progress for our community. Investing in our schools, passing surveillance privacy protections for our community, updating so many ordinances that I couldn't possibly list them. I think there's two more on the agenda tonight. to about quality of life, keeping our communities, our different neighborhoods cleaner and safer. And that product of work is so deeply impressive. This council, this term has done a lot. Kit has been at the head of that, at the helm of so much of that. We worked on a very big, difficult project with our zoning updates project where Kit essentially was a volunteer Web editor, communications director, meeting coordinator, and you know, I think one of the lessons we learn from that is. We shouldn't, even though Kit did it, it's probably not something we should ask any one person to do because there's probably no one else who could have done it. And that lesson is gonna inform our work for the next two years, where we're gonna finish out this really, really, really important project that Kit made so much headway and progress on and where we're already seeing really major improvements in the parts of our city where we were able to update our zoning. You know, that's the policy side of things. Everyone else talked about their personal items, and here I am just listing ordinances. Which I think doesn't even begin to go into the fact that if I do start talking about the personal thing, I won't be able to keep chairing the meeting for a little while. So Kit has just been an amazing, amazing, amazing colleague and friend, and done amazing service to our city here in Medford. And it won't be the same to be behind this rail without Kit. for the next term. So thank you, Vice President Collins, and good luck to the rest of us in trying to live up to what Kit has brought to this council and to our city. Would you like to say anything, Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. We do have some folks who'd like to speak, offering you further praise. So we'll go, if anyone in the chamber would like to speak, you can approach the podium. And we also have a couple of folks on Zoom. Looks like we'll start on Zoom. Or maybe we'll start with Barry at the podium. That's what we'll do. We'll start with Barry. Name and address for the record, Barry, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Andrew Casanetti on Zoom. Andy, I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go to Mounir Jermaine. Oh, we'll go to the podium. Okay. We'll go to Munir. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should have a little more music in these meetings. Thank you, Munir. We'll go to the podium. Jennifer, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jennifer. Anna, would you grab the hats? All right. Next, we're going to go to Steve Schnapp. Steve, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Steve. We will go back to the podium. Micah, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we'll go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, anyone else would like to speak on this paper? Seeing none, the next step is we will take a vote, and then anyone who would like to take a photo with us in the well, you're welcome to come up and take a photo with us and with Kit, and we'll go from there. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the paper, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right. We have quite a bit more business before us, so let's get the move on. Kit absolutely cannot go home, because the records of the meeting of December 2nd, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how'd you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees, 25186 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, December 9th, 2025 report. This was on the McGlynn Solar Project and Contract, and we are talking about that a little bit more later tonight. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24073 and 24354 offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, December 10th, 2025 report to follow. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24036 and 24461 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, December 10th, 2025. Report to follow, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Yes. Could we do these two first? Thank you. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25189 offered by Council President Bears. Amendment to Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 2, Medford Standard Compensation Ordinance. Councilor Collins, could you chair? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. So this is an ordinance amendment proposal called the Medford Standard Compensation Ordinance. As it says in the draft, the purpose of this chapter is to assure that employees of the City of Medford building service contractors and subcontractors earn an hourly wage that is needed to support a family of four and to promote labor peace in building service work contracted by the City of Medford. This ordinance The reasoning for it comes from identified gaps in our current city ordinances and procurement ordinances that other communities have fixed. We recently had a procurement process for custodial services in the Medford Public Schools where a union contractor was essentially replaced with a non-union contractor and through research it was determined mainly because the procurement process is inadequate. There was a union contractor who had submitted a competitive bid but was not selected because the process is just out of date and the ordinance is old. So this ordinance would update our procurement laws here in the city to make sure that when we're doing contracted or subcontracted services that the folks who are doing those jobs get and that in the bidding process, that compensation, there's no advantage to go non-union because there's a floor where every person who is being contracted by the city has to meet a basic wage floor. This is something that has been adopted in several communities. This language largely comes from that. Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and other communities have adopted these ordinances to make sure that our procurement process is not negatively affecting workers. We have some workers here tonight who were affected by the custodial contract. We also have some of their representatives here from 32JSNU, their union. And that, I'd love to hear from them after I hear from my fellow colleagues, but they can share more of their personal stories of what it's been like to be impacted by this procurement issue here in our city. that the decision makers in the Medford Public Schools were only able to make the decision with the information they had and that was based on a process that's out of date. So, you know, going forward whether it's city side, school side, getting this process up to date and making sure there's a fair wage floor for every worker. It means that an issue like this will not happen again, at very least will not happen again the way that it happened here. So I am really glad to be putting this forward. I'd like to move forward on it if at all possible and really would appreciate hearing from my colleagues and then hearing from our friends from who were until relatively recently working in a contract position for the city as well as their union. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah and I just wanted to again say thank you to all of you for sharing your stories. I know you've shared it here in the city council chamber and also with the school committee and I know it's especially been hard for some members who have been looking for work at the holidays trying to get a second job to become a first job and, you know, the fact that such real and difficult impacts on the lives of people who were working, you know, as contractors for the city of Medford. is just awful and something that we have to correct the law, make sure that there's really a truly fair shot every time and that the floor for everyone who works for the city is a fair prevailing living wage. And the fact that that wasn't the law and it resulted in this impact is just an awful thing. And we're gonna fix the law and then hopefully we can come around and make sure that everyone who's working in the contracted roles for our city is treated fairly. So thank you all for coming and sharing your story.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I'm open to taking a deeper look at it. The main reason I didn't propose that route on this where we did propose that on condo conversion at planning and permitting is it's basically just taking what's working somewhere else and putting it into our ordinance. And I think one of the things that we've somewhat struggled with as a council is like not having a role in contracts. So I don't know what's up for bid, if there are services up for bid. Probably there's not a bidding process that's going to happen in the next two months. My inclination was to approve it for first reading. We could have another meeting on it, but if we wanted to send it to committee of the whole, that would be fine with me as well. You know, we can go either way. My only, well, I'm just, you know, we have a very hard time getting council to respond in a timely way in this community right now, at least to city council requests. And that inclines me to. kind of put the ball back in their court to send responses and replies if there are questions. So that's just my thinking. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah. I think Councilor Tseng might call this good law. There's good law and bad law. Good law is generally law that's working elsewhere. In parlance that I'm sure Councilor Tseng is more familiar with. But essentially what this does is it, I think the worst part of this is I don't even know that we saved money. Right? Yeah. It's just that the process is really, like, not working well. And there's not really a... Yeah. It's just not clear that the decision makers are getting all of the information on all of the bids in a way where they could... necessarily make a fair comparison. I'm not going to go through the specifics of the step to step to step to step to step. I can certainly connect you with Rama and the 32BJ team who did a lot of work asking why did this happen and, you know, who made what decisions that led to the information that the Medford Public Schools got to then pick a contract. Because I think it just really reflects that the procurement process itself, not having these protections that other communities have, is really what the issue was. It wasn't even like anyone made an intentional choice to try to save money or anything. It was just like the two bids that got to the decision maker. didn't have a full, there wasn't a full picture provided, and because of this didn't exist, there wasn't like a floor for wages that every person, every bidder had to meet. So in here, in section... 2937, it talks about prescribed rates of pay pursuant to Director of Department of Labor Standards for janitorial security service employees. So that's similar to some things that we already have in our ordinance around. construction and contracting projects which essentially ties things to the prevailing wage standards set out by the Commonwealth. So that's the mechanism that's being used here. We have I think what's titled in our ordinances like a responsible wage ordinance. I can't remember the exact title, but it's actually the chapter that would be, that is right before what this would be in our ordinances. So essentially we have something very similar to this for contracted construction, but not for contracted service work. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We don't need to have disputed voice votes. It doesn't count.
[Zac Bears]: It's still like the yeses. Yeah, just you would say not unanimously. We just very rarely have non-unanimous voice votes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we also have a letter here from the school committee. And I did have some meetings with member Graham, vice chair Graham on this as well. But this was a resolution presented on the agenda from September 8th, 2025 of the School Committee, along with the meeting minutes approved September 22nd. So we have Medford School Committee resolution requesting City Council adoption of Chapter 399, school bus stop arm camera enforcement, whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enacted Chapter 399 of the Acts of 2024, titled an act concerning the safety of school children embarking and disembarking school buses, which authorizes municipalities to install and operate school bus violation detection and monitoring systems. And whereas pilot programs in PVD and SEM have demonstrated the effectiveness of those systems with thousands of violations recorded in a single school year. Whereas the law includes strict privacy protections requiring that non-violation recordings be destroyed within 30 days and violation recordings within one year of final disposition. And whereas the safety of Medford's children is a top priority and the implementation of stop arm cameras has been shown to deter illegal passing and improve compliance with school safety laws. Now therefore be it resolved that the school committee respectfully request that the city council formally accept the provisions of chapter 399 of the acts of 2024, thereby enabling the city of Medford to install and operate school bus violation detection monitoring systems. Be it further resolved that the school committee recommends the establishment of a joint committee, including a representative from the school committee, a representative of the city council, the chief of police, the superintendent of schools, and the mayor or designee to evaluate and recommend policies regarding the use of revenue generated from citations. And be it further resolved that the school committee respect the request that the mayor agree to earmark citation revenue for exclusive use as directed by the recommendations of this committee. With a priority given to student safety initiatives, transportation, infrastructure improvements, and public awareness campaigns. A motion to approve by member Intoppa, seconded by member Branley. And this was unanimously approved September 8th, 2025 by the school committee. So our role here is to accept the provision of state law, Chapter 40, Section 71, also known as the Chapter 399 of the Acts of 2024. The school committee did recommend establishing a joint committee, including those members and my understanding from their resolution. and talking to Vice Chair Jenny Graham, is that the citation revenue will be used for safety improvements for transportation infrastructure, focusing on student safety first and foremost. So I think this is a one-two punch, if you ask me. We deter people buzzing by school buses when they have their stop arms out and we bring in some revenue that can go right back into safety improvements. So that is the resolution. Remember Graham and I also were able to meet with Mike Gorman from Bus Patrol which is one of the, they're the folks who do this the best. They've been doing this in multiple communities around Massachusetts. I won't speak more on that other than that we had some great conversations both about the program and the law, but also about privacy. And we were able to incorporate a few amendments to draft contracts to further address some privacy concerns that we I had heard from some residents from our ACLU Medford People Power chapter, and they were very amenable, very clear that their intent is not about collecting data, but stopping people from putting kids in danger by zipping by school buses. So I felt really good about that and I'm thankful for the conversations that we had. And I would move approval pending discussion by members of the council and I know that Mike is here to talk about, answer any questions, kind of talk a little bit more about their program as well. And you guys presented to the school committee as well?
[Zac Bears]: To member Graham, yeah, okay, great. That's all I have, thank you Chair Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just wanted to thank you guys again for your work and for being a resident. I know it can feel really great to have something you've been working on at a large scale come home and Having kids in the community, I'm sure that that makes this issue even closer to your heart. So I really appreciate that. You know, we worked out some of the questions around privacy and I really appreciate that. Got a couple more that I think we can engage in some dialogue on after the meeting. Just to make sure that, you know, that the provisions of the contract are really keeping Keeping the data safe and I know that that's something you've really talked about. The focus is on keeping kids safe keeping our community safe. That's what you guys do. So feeling good about that myself and I'll make sure to share any additional questions or language suggestions with you guys. And I appreciate it just really the willingness and openness to just put that in. in the agreement and make it clear, like, we're just putting these cameras on to keep the kids safe. And beyond that, privacy is really important to you guys, too. So that's really meaningful. It's another value we share as a council. We've spent quite a bit of time on data privacy. And honestly, you know, I think You know, having relationships with folks that we trust around that is really important because, sadly, we are regulating this at the local level, you know, when privacy, I think, really is a right that we all think should be much more clearly enshrined and addressed at the state and federal level. So I appreciate us having to work that out since the people who should be working it out haven't done it.
[Zac Bears]: I will ask those questions of you. And I think it would be helpful to talk a little bit about what gets collected, basically what an interaction looks like when someone drives by, what's collected, how long does it stick around for, that's helpful. And yeah, if you could talk about beyond enforcement as well a little bit. And I think that the last thing I'll say to what Micah and Barry were talking about is this, what we're doing tonight is adopting the state law, which allows us to enter into a procurement process. And so then there would be an agreement signed. And then we also have a city ordinance called Community Control over Public Surveillance. This would probably qualify as a surveillance technology. So the city likely in this case Medford Public Schools through the bus contractor would just have a policy in place saying this is essentially how we use this. I'm guessing a lot of it would be pulled from the agreement itself but just to clarify some procedural elements as well. But yeah I think talking about what does an interaction look like and just a little bit about beyond enforcement would be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: The Beyond Enforcement Program, we're not doing that here, right? Or could you explain what that is a little bit more?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. My understanding from our conversations is that the city is not going to be participating in that program.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah. That was my understanding from the conversations with member Graham and the school committee resolution. This is just about the safety outside the bus. All right. Thank you, at least for me. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's one amendment, if you don't mind. Sure. Should say be it ordered. Yeah. Thanks. So that would be a motion to approve, motion to accept and approve as amended. Great. And we should roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Tseng to take paper 24 0 6 9 from the table and to take it from the table. Yes. Seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Motion passes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Do you need to be a co-host?
[Zac Bears]: You are a co-host.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Do we have questions or discussion by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Lazzaro. Any further questions or discussion by members of the council? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone who'd like to speak on this ordinance? I have one hand on Zoom. Anyone in person? Sure. If you're in person, please come to the podium. We'll alternate between in-person and Zoom, and everyone will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Oh, lovely. Usually that's a beep.
[Zac Bears]: For some reason, that's the default. I can't explain why. I will go to Munir Jermanis on Zoom. Munir, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And seeing no – well, we'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Lesson for Councilors there. As Owen looks at me longingly wishing to go home. Thank you, Barry. on the motion of Councilor Tseng to adopt for third read to ordain. Approved for third reading and ordain as amended by Councilor Tseng, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, including that amendment. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng, can you give us a non-red line version, too rich for the records.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly what it should say. Okay. No more, no less. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take communications from the mayor by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor, 25186, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Authorization of contract period in excess of three years, McGlynn School Solar Panels, 20-year contract with Solect Energy. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respect the request and recommend that the City Council approves the following contract with Solect, 20-year term for the contract with Solect Energy. As the Council is aware, Mass General Law Chapter 30B, Section 12 requires City Council to approve authorization of a contract term that exceeds three years. And so this would be authorizing the city to enter into a 20 year lease agreement. And we did have a discussion and committee of the whole last week with Brenda Pike from our Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. I know we had a few questions and Brenda did. get some answers to those questions. We should be able to give you sharing power, Brenda, or one of us could maybe share the slides, whatever's easier for you. Great. Matt, could you share the slides? Give me one second, actually.
[Zac Bears]: This will load for me. One second there. All right. Can folks see that? I can zoom in a little bit. All right. Go ahead, Brenda.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions for Planner Pike? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Brenda, I had one question. It looks like no more questions from the council. So as I'm reading this, the power purchase agreement, which is what we're doing, the PPA over the 20-year term saves a total of about 1.6 million. And then if we were to buy them, we would have an upfront cost of that $1.2 million. And then does the term savings, like do I need to subtract the $1 million from the term savings?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so like interest costs over the 20-year bond at even the municipal rate. I mean, I won't try to do back of the napkin math, but yeah, essentially, The question here is if that bonding cost is more than $800,000, then it's a wash or actually less for us to, we would save less if we bought them, essentially. Is that the math?
[Zac Bears]: All right, well, that was my only question. Anyone else have any questions on this? Seeing none and, Seeing no comments by members of the public on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming to approve the authorization of the city to enter into a contract term greater than three years for this project. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Brenda. There was a numbering error. This next paper is actually 25185. So we have 25185. Proposed wage adjustment for 9-1-1 Dispatchers Union. I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances, chapter 66, article 2. 9-1-1 Dispatchers, effective July 1, 22, increased base salary 2.5%, July 1, 2023, 2.75%, July 1, 2024, 3%, July 1, 2025, 2.5%, July 1, 2026, 2.5%, July 1, 2027, 2.5%. HR Director Lisa Crowley. It will be available to answer any questions. I will recognize Director Crowley. And if there's anything you'd like to present on this paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Crowley. Any further questions by members of the council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to waive the three readings and approve to be ordained, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. 25-193 submitted by Mayor Brandolino, current Community Preservation Committee, appropriation request, Riverside Plaza Contingency. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $40,000 from the CPA Open Space Reserve to the City of Medford's Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability to fund additional contingency needs for the Riverside Plaza Shade Improvements Project. This project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPA Manager Teresa Dupont will be in attendance to address the council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lindow-Kern, Mayor. We have here essentially the same thing, conditions of approval. The project shall have public engagement opportunities on final design choices and the project is to result in no net reduction to tree canopy and ensure all displaced trees are replanted in an appropriate location or replaced in kind. So I'll recognize Manager DuPont and we also have Amanda Centralla here from Planning Development and Sustainability. Didn't see you there, but we'll let you talk too, but I'll go to Teresa first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll recognize Planner Centrella. And then we'll go to questions from the council. Thanks, Teresa.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Amanda. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Seeing none, by members of the council or members of the public, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Thank you, Teresa and Amanda.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 25194 submitted by Mayor Brianne Lohan, Capital Stabilization Fund Appropriation Request in this contract extension. Dear President Bears, members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriation from the Capital Stabilization Fund and its contract extension in the amount of $85,330 and zero cents. Capital Stabilization Fund has a balance of $10,653,899. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Submitted Brianna Lugo Kern, Mayor. And I have an email here from the Chief of Staff. Dear President Bears, I'm writing on the capital stabilization fund appropriation request for the NS contract extension. As I'm sure the council knows, this extension is a result of negotiations and discussions between the mayor and the council. I believe this appropriation is straightforward. However, if any questions arise that require the resolution this evening, please feel free to contact me. I'll do my best to join the meeting via Zoom, though I don't have childcare coverage this evening. Thank you, Nina. So that is the message from the administration. Is there any discussion by members of the council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there a comment from members of the public? I see no hands on Zoom, but we have someone in person. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for the comment, and just I know you're talking about the RFP, happy to answer that. This is an extension on the existing contract for a defined number of topics, Medford Square, and then an RFP will go out. for residential and that longer list of topics. So this is just going through next spring to address a couple of outstanding things. It's Bedford Square, some ordinance cleanup and alignment, and then the RFP will go out for all of the other districts and residential. So there's no bids yet. This is an extension of the existing contract that was signed in 2024 and then there will be RFP bidding process and a bidder will be selected for the rest of the project next spring.
[Zac Bears]: Not on this contract extension.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be an RFP. There's basically the contracts getting extended for Medford Square. I think the Tufts Institutional Zone and the ordinance cleanup. And then an RFP will be drafted. We'll review it as a council. We'll approve it. And then bids will be solicited in the springtime for the rest of the project through 2028. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: You're welcome. All right. On the motion. This is an appropriation, so Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. 25195, submitted by Mayor Marianna Lungo-Koehn, MOU, Memorandum of Understanding with Mystic Valley Development Corporation. Dear President Bears and Medford City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body authorize a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mystic Valley Development Corporation, sorry, Mystic Valley Development Commission, MVDC, under Mass General Law Chapter 40, Section 4A, for payments to the City of Malden covering fiscal years 26 through 30, ranging from $31,683 in fiscal 26 to $47,848 in fiscal 30 in connection with the Rivers Edge project. As the council knows, this agreement is the product of months of discussion and successful negotiations with the MVDC related to the properties at 100 and 200 Rivers Edge Drive. which are no longer exempt from taxation by the City of Medford under Mass General Law Chapter 59 for fiscal 26 and subsequent years. Accordingly, those properties were rolled off the pilot agreement and are being taxed as part of the negotiations in the interest of avoiding litigation between the parties. Medford agreed to mitigate the financial impact on Malden through these payments. Chief Assessor Jared Edgian will be present to provide the council with an overview and answer questions. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Briana Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And we have our assessor here. Anything you'd like to add in addition to the memo?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And basically, this is, Malden was getting some pilot payments for Rivers Edge.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any questions by members of the council on this one? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Thank you. 25-196 submitted by Mayor Branley-McCurran, Amendment to Personnel Ordinance Assistant City Engineer and Project Manager. Dear President, mayors and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel, article two entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan amendment by adopting the following change. Amendment A classification of NPW 21 shall be amended to remove the following position and a new classification of NPW 21.5 be created to include the following position. As per the below table, Assistant City Engineer, Step 1, $2,036.09. Step 2, $2,124.80. Step 3, $2,254. Step 4, $2,278.61. Amendment B, a new classification of NPW-16 be created to include the following position. As per the below table, Project Manager, Step 1, $1,364.12. Step two, $1,416.54. Step three, $1,471.49. Step four, $1,528.81. DPW Commissioner Tim McGivern and City Engineer Owen Wirtella will be available to speak to this request. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And I believe those are weekly salary numbers. That's correct. That I read out. Wonderful. All right, we got Tim and Owen. Let us know what's up. Yeah, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions for these guys? Sorry, I have one. We created a civil project manager position. Is this, this is different from that? This is?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And is that position filled?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay. All right. Yeah, that's a long time to be going without two assistant city engineers. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Plans for next year? Great. If you want to reach out to me, we can. find a time maybe we can get you a dedicated meeting where we don't have 15 things on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: They're here now. We can't send them home without having answered some good questions. No, but I mean, I think all of this makes sense. But I do share, personally, I just share, I want you guys to have the staffing you need to get the work done. It's really hard when four open positions in an office of, what, 12? No? Eight? Eight? Maybe I'm counting Todd's people. That's including Todd. Todd's in the engineering division, for sure. Oh, great. Yeah, so you're at half staff.
[Zac Bears]: So we need to make a half-calf.
[Zac Bears]: That's helpful to understand the timing on it too. So close. Yeah. Well we can get it done tonight. I think I'll have part.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well I feel good about it. Any further questions from members of the council. Seeing none. Seeing no comment by members of the public on the motion. Sorry. Is it Council Vice President Collins? Motion approved by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. And we should approve, waive the three readings and approve to be ordained. Yeah. Yeah. Great. By Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six affirmative, one absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just got to get the mayor to sign it.
[Zac Bears]: You could have come up for the picture with Kit. Wow. Wow. You know? All right, you're coming on a regular meeting night. That's what we're doing for your plan. I want 20 resolutions on that agenda. Thanks, you guys. All right, we have four more things to do. That's communications from the mayor, so we're back to the regular order of business. We have 25191 offered by Councilor Leming, whereas the mayor and city council agreed as written in press release unanimously endorsed at the December 2nd city council meeting. that we would use the version of the zoning amendment neighborhood residential and urban residential districts as referred to the community development board on March 25th, 2025 as a starting point in future residential rezoning. Be it resolved that the city council withdraw this zoning amendment proposal. Be it further resolved that we notify the community development board that they do not need to consider it further until the city council submits a draft in the future. Be it further resolved that the residential rezoning draft approved by the city council on March 27th be referred back to the planning and permitting committee. Be it further resolved that the council also withdraw paper 2 5 0 8 6 accessory dwelling units from the community development board for concurrent development within the city council's planning and permitting committee. Councilor Leming. We know it's different. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, great. Yeah, just to clarify, Councilor Leming, just to make it crystal clear, we are withdrawing the residential proposal that's currently with the Community Development Board. The version that the council will consider as a starting point once the New RFP is out and we're working on, you know, once we have a new contract for zoning consultant would be the council's original proposal, not the community development board, the mayor's appointee's proposal which was from May, which was much, much, which significantly increased from the proposal that this council voted on. All right. Oh, yes, councilman.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Yeah. And again, I just wanted to clarify, it's no longer going to be in the Community Development Board. It's going to be in the next phase of the zoning project. Won't even start discussions until at least next spring. And the starting point for those conversations will be the council's original proposal, not the planning, the Community Development Board's proposal, which was significantly more dense and increased than what the council had proposed. So just want to be clear about that because there's a bunch of kind of complicated stuff going on here. On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed. Motion passes. 25192 resolution to withdraw Medford Square, West Medford Square zoning amendment. and resubmitted separate amendments to Community Development Board for future consideration. Whereas the Community Development Board expressed interest at a recent meeting to sever the joint Medford Square, West Medford Square papers that are currently under consideration by their bodies but only the council is legally allowed to do so. Whereas the recent agreement between the council and the mayor called for Medford Square to be considered by the Community Development Board in January and West Medford Square to be only updated pending the ongoing study, be it therefore resolved that the city council withdraw its joint West Medford Square and Medford Square proposal. Be it further resolved that the proposal be received and placed on file. Be it further resolved that the proposal be replaced by two separate zoning proposals for Medford Square and West Medford Square. Be it further resolved that the attached proposal for Medford Square be referred to the Community Development Board for a joint public hearing in January. Be it further resolved that the attached proposal for West Medford Square be referred to the City Council Planning and Permitting Committee for further development. And be it further resolved that we further clarify. that these are simply the same draft proposals previously under consideration with the only change being that they are legally severed from each other. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any questions by members of the council or discussion? Seeing none, is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Uh-oh. Is it Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins wants one last second.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24036 offered by Vice President Collins, amendment to Chapter 38, Article 2, Overgrowth Ordinance. Vice President Collins, if you could summarize, please.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Do you want first reading or go through the whole thing, your call? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to waive the three readings and approve to be ordained by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, if there's anyone who would like to talk about it, we'll go to.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. All right, any comments on the overgrowth? Seeing none, on the motion to approve, waive the three readings and approve to be ordained. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and overgrowth ordinance is ordained. 24461 offered by Vice President Collins, Amendment to Chapter 6, Article 4, Rodent Control Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Not at all? Sorry, section?
[Zac Bears]: All eligible fees and receipts collected pursuant to this ordinance or for violations thereof shall go into the designated road and control account.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. It was a link.
[Zac Bears]: For both of these, please send a non-redlined, no comments, exact correct text version of this to Rich and myself. Thanks. Great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to waive the three readings and approve to be ordained by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, do you want to talk about it? All right, we'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng, and then we'll go to at least one or more people who want to talk about it. But we'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, members of the public who wanna talk about road and control, now is the hour. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. Hey, Paula.
[Zac Bears]: We're way over.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paulette.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll stay at the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments on this item? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Cohn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Council Vice President Collins you can correct me. The city is not using rodenticide. at least mine understand, my memory of the last time we talked about this. I don't believe that they are. Okay. We can check in. I think we've had Yankee Pest Control and Marianne here a few times now. I don't think the city itself is. We'll double check that. But this question that Paula brought up is about ban for private use, which is a big piece. Yeah ban or restrict on private use as well which is a whole other element. I'm guessing most of the road and control traps in the city are actually not municipally owned or controlled or at least a good chunk of them. One sentence Paulette you had you had a long time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Seeing no further discussion or comment on this item, on the motion to waive the three readings and approve to be ordained. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Please send the final copies here. Last thing on the agenda, public participation. Oh, public participation. This is a chance for our members of the public to speak on topics that they'd like to talk about. We have two folks. We've got one in person and one on Zoom. We'll start in person. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Zoom and then we'll come back in person. And that might be it, but we have Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, Andy, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is the final meeting of the year. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Good night, Andy. Thank you. And sorry about the doors. We'll make sure they're open in the future. Apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Simon. Yes, I want to give a big shout out to everyone who's involved with that, Councilor Lazzaro included. But yeah it really goes to show what physical safety improvements can do on our streets to keep everyone safer in cars on bikes walking or rolling. And I think that's really important. Nice note to end on. Thanks Simon. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. And the meeting. Thanks. Happy holidays, everyone. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'll be quick. Yeah. take the comments that you identified as decision points and put them in kind of like a top line such decision points document for to guide us in the future. That would be amazing. Thank you. And then my only other question is who from city staff or boards and commissions do you think we should follow up with to have a meeting with them about this?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yeah, the bill at the Statehouse was about tenants regardless of conversion. The Acts of 1983 allows this specifically for condo conversion, so that's the difference. Okay. Yeah. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I would move that we keep the paper in committee pending the memo from Vice President Collins and invite our Planning Development and Sustainability Director and staff and Building Commissioner to a future meeting in this committee on this draft ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: I'm on already. There you go. I just wanted to be recognized by the chair. Thank you. Chair Collins for not only your leadership on this ordinance, but your astute leadership of this committee for the past two years. Your presence at the chair of this committee will be missed by all of us, especially those of us who have to serve on the committee next. So we are so thankful. I'll speak for myself. I'm so thankful for your leadership and everything that you brought to this council and to this committee as its chair this term.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Brenda's here. Brenda's got the info for us. Perfect. Hi, Brenda.
[Zac Bears]: We wanted to have an opportunity to talk about it before the regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah. Great. Well, we'll get people to join us and then we'll get started. All right. Hi Brenda. Hi Emily. Hey Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Hi Rich too.
[Zac Bears]: and whoever is manning the booth, Kevin or Jim, are shamed.
[Zac Bears]: All right, welcome everyone. This is Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, December 9th, 2025. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: He is present. He is muted.
[Zac Bears]: He's iPhone, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That'd be great, yeah. You should be unmuted, George. Okay, can you hear me? Yep. Okay, present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. And President Deans. Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items 25-186 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Authorization of contract period in excess of three years. McGlynn School solar panel, 20-year contract with Select Energy. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council approves the following 20-year contracts with Select Energy. As the Council is aware, Mass General Law Chapter 30B, Section 12 requires City Council approval for a contract that exceeds three years. Agreement authorizes the city to enter into a 20-year lease agreement to allow for installation of solar photovoltaic PV on the McGlynn School roof, as well as a power purchase agreement to purchase electricity produced by said installation. This type of financial agreement was previously used on the Department of Public Works solar installation. It avoids any upfront capital costs to the city. Instead, the installer owns the solar panels and the city purchases the electricity produced by them. The contract is for 20 years, the anticipated useful lifespan of the solar panels. It stretches the cost of the panels over a length of time that reduces the per kilowatt hour cost of energy from the current supply cost of 0.1311 kilowatt hours to 0.0467 kilowatt hours. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn-Mayer. And we scheduled this committee of the whole so that we could have a discussion on the request for a contract allowing for a contract period greater than three years, allowing the city and the mayor to enter into that. And we wanted to make sure that we heard from Brenda from our planning development sustainability office and get any questions answered because there's some timeliness required here the changes in the federal landscape around renewable energy. So I will recognize Brenda Pike to present on this, and then we'll go to councilors for questions. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli and then anyone else who has questions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I appreciated those questions. Go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Lazzaro. Emily, you're on mute.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I will note that technically we don't approve the contract. We are authorizing the city to enter into a contract period greater than three years.
[Zac Bears]: We can ask a lot of questions, but yeah, we never approve a contract. We just say the period can be longer than three years.
[Zac Bears]: Me or Brenda?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll recognize Brenda.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Great, thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. So we've had some good questions. Brenda, do you think you'll be able to bring some of those answers to us next week when we discuss this? Our last regular meeting is next Tuesday, and I know we have this deadline coming up. So that's one of the reasons that we scheduled this committee of the whole. It seems like we got some good questions out the door. Do you feel like you have other questions you need and some answers that you can bring next week?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Brenda. Thanks, Brenda. Any further questions from members of the Council? And I don't see any members of the public here. I know Chris Stevens from God I know Medford is here. Chris if you have any questions or if any members of the public would like to speak you can raise your hand on zoom. All right, seeing none, what we would need here is a motion to refer this to the regular meeting and adjourn. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to refer this paper to the regular meeting and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. That's a good one.
[Zac Bears]: The 22nd regular meeting, Medford City Council, December 2nd, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Pierce. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meeting of November 18th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records? Oh, your mics are switched. Are all the mics switched? Great. Wow, this is a mess. This is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor. Opposed. The motion passes. Reports of committees 2 5 1 7 8 and 2 4 4 6 1 offered by Council President Bears. Committee of the Whole. Is that right? Sorry. One second. Here we'll do this one first. 25179 and 24461 offered by council is our Public Health and Community Safety Committee, November 19th, 2025. Give me a vamp a little bit, will you?
[Zac Bears]: Just take a little extra time, I got to.
[Zac Bears]: I can do, if you don't mind me doing mine. Please. 25178, it just, there was an extra paper number in there and I was like, this is not right. We had a presentation from Transom Real Estate and Committee of the Whole. Is there a motion to approve both papers?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve both reports by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 25160 submitted by the Office of Planning Development and Sustainability. Proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, Salem Street neighborhood quarter district map change. So we have continued this public hearing for a couple of meetings now. We've had robust discussion. There has been more communications, emails sent by the mayor. I believe Councilor Leming has had some conversations with the mayor. So I'm going to turn over to Councilor Leming. We also did receive a communication at some point today which I have printed in front of me. I have it here, yeah. So I'll just read that. December 2nd, 2025, regarding resolution 25160, proposed amendments to the Bedford zoning ordinance as was requested at the, dear President Bears and members of the city council, as was requested at the November 18th, 2025 city council meeting. I'm submitting this letter under resolution 25160 to share with you the enclosed draft joint press release finalized by Councilor Leming and me. that I am prepared to issue once the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district map change has been voted on by the council. Specifically, I'm again requesting the council amend the zoning map to change the designation from MX2 to MX1 for the parcels within the Salem Street and Park Street node as shown on the map entitled Salem Street Corridor Zoning dated March 3rd, 2025. Respectfully submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have a draft here. Mayor and city council agree to restart zoning project at the December 2nd, 2025 Medford city council meeting. This would be if that vote was taken. The mayor and city council agreed on a plan to restart the city zoning updates project. The city will sign an extension and provide additional resources to advance key zoning priorities in Medford square, Tufts and Boston Ave between now and May, 2026. The city will solicit new proposals starting in February, March for work on zoning updates between May 2026 and June 2028 with a one-year extension, if not complete. The mayor in collaboration with the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability will appropriate funding to sign a contract extension with NS Land Group to perform work in the following areas from December 2025 to May 2026. full Bedford Square zoning update, Tufts Institutional Zone and Boston Ave, clean up areas of our zoning in accordance with the needs of the Building Commissioner and Office of Planning Development and Sustainability and Communications and Community Engagement Support. The Mayor will additionally request that the City Council and Community Development Board hold a joint public hearing in January to discuss the rezoning proposal for Medford Square and West Medford Square that is currently sitting in the Community Development Board. Following this, a request for proposals for a new contract will be released to bidders in February-March, and a proposal will be selected in April to begin work in May 2026 and continue through June 2028. This RFP will include Main Street and Broadway. Corridors, the initiation of a parking study through planning, development and sustainability. Wellington-Mystic Valley Parkway after the completion of the Wellington Transformation Study. West Medford Square after the completion of the West Medford Economic Assessment and SWOT Analysis. Mystic Avenue after the Tufts UEP Field Project Proposal for Mystic Avenue Corridor. Residential, including ADUs and historic conversion, starting with the less dense residential zoning map that the Council approved in March 2025 as a starting point, which could be adjusted based on neighborhood input. The map released by the Community Development Board from May 2025 will not be the starting point. Parking will take place at the same time as residential zoning. Transportation demand management review inclusionary zoning updates and affordable housing overlay. Other agreements include an RFP and additional funds for a public relations consultant to engage in more robust community engagement, including a professionally designed standalone zoning website, support for neighborhood meetings, and better outreach into the community ahead of zoning meetings via mailers, text messages, robocalls, and social media. The council and the mayor will work together on whether or not this should be a standalone RFP. No new zoning amendments will be presented during July and August. Department heads will be consulted from the beginning on all of the above. At the December 2nd meeting, the council voted to rezone parts of the Salem Park node from MX2 to MX1 following a September request from the mayor. So that's the full draft. Thank you Councilor Leming for working on it and I will turn it over to you and then we can go to discussion from the council and then we'll reopen the public hearing. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just procedurally we have to reopen the public hearing and then we'll close the public hearing and then we would have to vote on any B paper before voting on the main paper.
[Zac Bears]: Well. But we can get there once we've done the, once we've closed the public hearing, I'll take the motions. Gotcha.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: to Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Council Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: To be honest, I was not part of the negotiations. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: From reading this, it seems like the mayor is saying that she's only willing to put out a press release after a vote, but I'll let Councilor Leming talk about that.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe we can go around or, go ahead Matt, Councilman. I could, well, yeah, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And, and I think just, you know, we're approving this draft release. We then have to have a meeting. on the substance of it, both the. We have to have a meeting to restart the first phase of that process. We have to have a meeting on writing the RFP. I think there's room for engagement. And I would like to see, to be honest, like maybe in this first phase that some of the communication support would be talking about the meeting about the RFP for the second phase, you know. But I agree with you. I mean, my personal preference was also that a public statement was made before it came back to us. And it seems like that wasn't where we ended up. Yeah. Yeah. But I hear you. I hear you. Yeah. Yeah. And good counseling. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean I think that sounds like a path forward. This is a start. As I read this, it's a starting point. Details to come in terms of some of the, we're not saying exactly when everything's going to happen. It's still a framework. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any more comments or questions from members of the council? Seeing none at this time, I'm gonna reopen the public hearing. If you're here in person and you'd like to speak on this topic, this is the proposed amendment for Salem Street zoning. You can come to the podium or if you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand. Public hearing is open. Seeing one hand, and I will go there in just a second. I do want to note this is our third meeting of this continued public hearing, and we have had several people speak on this in previous public hearings. Give me one second, Micah. All right. name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Micah, I'll answer questions at the end of your comment. Okay, sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, we received this by email at 4.30, 4 p.m. today. Do we have any, and actually at 5.30, well, actually I'm not sure we all received it, I'm not sure. I received it at 4.30, 4 p.m. today. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic in the public hearing? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Well, Councilor Leming, you had two motions. If you wanna, I can see if I can get them down myself. There was a motion for a B paper to approve the, here, you go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, do we have any questions? So I have a motion on a B paper to approve the language of the draft press released, submitted by the mayor on Tuesday, December 2nd, by Councilor Leming. Is there a second on that motion? seconded by Councilor Tseng, and then we'll take a motion on the main paper. On the B paper, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. And then on the main paper, this is the motion to adopt the zoning amendment submitted to us by the Community Development Board, paper 25160. Let me just double check. And once again, this is from Danielle Evans, Senior Planner, Office of Planning Development Sustainability on behalf of the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board held a public meeting on September 17th, 2025 to consider a request from the Mayor to initiate a zoning amendment to the Salem Street Corridor District in accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law, Chapter 40A, Section 5. The proposed amendment as described in the attached memorandum from Mayor Lungo-Koehn to the Community Development Board dated September 15th, would amend the zoning map to change the designation from MX2 to MX1 for the parcels within the Salem Street and Park Street node as shown on the map entitled Salem Street Corridor Zoning dated March 3rd, 2025. Board members present at the meeting were Acting Chair Adam Behrens, Member John Anderson, Member Sean Began, Member Doug Carr, and Member Dina Collegero. Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian appeared before the board and presented the request. After consideration of the request, the Community Development Board voted unanimously 5-0 to submit the zoning amendment to the City Council as presented. So it's the motion to adopt the zoning amendment as presented by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. The zoning amendment is adopted. Communications from the mayor 25181. Offered by mayor, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Affordable housing trust action plan and guidelines. Give me one second here again. Sorry, y'all. I'm just gonna take it online. One second, sorry. November 25th, 2025, regarding Affordable Housing Trust Action Plan and Guidelines 2025 to 2030. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board has prepared the enclosed Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Action Plan and Guidelines for the years 2025 to 2030. I respectfully request and recommend the council permit a presentation to be made to your honorable body on the planning guidelines. Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board Chair Lisa Davidson and Trustee Roberta Cameron will be present to present the planning guidelines. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. So with that, I will recognize our Affordable Housing Trust Fund members, the Chair Lisa Davidson and Roberta Cameron.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So anything you'd like to introduce while we wait for the slot.
[Zac Bears]: Councilwoman, did you receive the slides? Which email are you sending?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you might want to throw the Gmail on. That might get through the spam filter faster. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Feel free in the future to send it to Rich and he can get it out to everybody. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I found it in my Gmail. which is not where I was looking, but I forwarded it.
[Zac Bears]: I forwarded it to Matt, too, so eventually there will be slides on the screen for you to look at at some point.
[Zac Bears]: We have questions from members of the council and thank you Councilman Eken and the screen share.
[Zac Bears]: If you don't mind, I just have a follow-up to that. It's okay. I'm just wondering because I think this is kind of the trap we fall into sometimes in the city. How much of this outreach was tasked, was it the volunteers of the Affordable Housing Trust who were doing that outreach? Versus how much support was available from the city staff?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Levin.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: That'd be great. If they could be placed on the Affordable Housing Trust site and then I'll upload them and attach them to this meeting as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I can't remember. Early 2023 we passed it.
[Zac Bears]: Appointments weren't made until July, 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you guys for your presentation. Really appreciate the dialogue on this. You know, I understand how much work you guys put in here and I know how much work so many people put in to lots of things that make our city run. And I also know that a lot of that work is happening because we don't have the city resources and city funding, in my opinion, to set our city up And I think that's really, you know, maybe a bridge between some of the perspectives we've heard tonight is like, what does it look like for the city of Medford to set up our boards and our commissions and our committees and our task forces for success? I think this is a really strong report. There's a ton of detailed information, data analysis. I really appreciate that. And I think you guys are on the same page. You would have loved that survey to be 140 people instead of 70 or 280 instead of 140. And I think the question is, like, what is it going to take for us to get there? You know, what does making sure that the staff who worked with you have the tools to get more outreach? What does it look like for more people to be engaged in the different ways that our city communicates with people? Because I do think, you know, it makes things harder when we don't have that. And that's, I think, where I can agree with Councilor Scarpelli, while I can also agree with all my other colleagues on all of their comments. You know, it's a great start and you're working really hard and you did the best with what we have as a city right now. And I think the question is, just like the question is on affordable housing, we're doing good work, but we need to do more. And we need a lot more affordable housing. We need you guys to have more than $300,000. We need the CPC to have more support. We need everybody to really have, more resources to thrive because we need more affordable housing so that people who want to live here can thrive. So that's hopefully a bridge that we can have between all the different perspectives we've shared tonight. And we can do our work to lift up the amazing work that you've done so far and fight to make sure that you have the resources you need to do even more. And that's where I'm coming down on it. So I just really want to thank you. because I'd love more people to be hearing about what you're doing. And I know you guys would love that. And I, it wasn't something you guys were doing, but I walked in to Room 201 a few weeks ago, and some folks from our PDS office were holding a session on the rehab program. We have the rehab grant program, right? And they had all of these amazing resources, and they had had successful, other successful forms of outreach. But that day, I don't know if anybody walked in. And that's kind of the, how do we get that out there more? How do we make sure that people know more about what's going on in our city? Because it's good. And that's really, I hope, the thing that we can try to provide. And I really want to thank you for. bringing this before us and presenting it. And I want to see this action plan succeed. And I hope that in five years when we're doing the next action plan, we're talking about, you know, $3 million, not $300,000, maybe even more than that. And hopefully we can help with that with our linkage fee work and inclusionary fractional and some of the stuff that's in this report that I think is on our fingertips in the next few months to try to get implemented. So that's my piece. Thank you for that. Is there any, do you need us to vote on this? Or you just wanted to present it to share? Sure, yeah. Great. Well, thank you so much. Thanks. Is there a motion to, oh, we do have one comment online. It looks like we have some public comment. So if there's anyone who wants to comment on this paper, either in person or on Zoom, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. And I will start on Zoom right now. Micah, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go through everything and then I'll write down the questions and we'll see what we got. I'm going to go to Lisa Serio on Zoom. Lisa, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Lisa. We'll go next to Marie. Marie, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Marie, it's pretty muffled. Could you, could you, sorry. It's pretty muffled. We're having a hard time hearing you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's still very muffled. I'm gonna go to the next commenter, then I'll come back to you. Maybe put it on speakerphone or I don't know if you're, you know, I'm not exactly sure what your microphone situation is, but I'm gonna go to Robert and then I'll come back to you, Marie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will follow up on that question about changes, demographics, families of children. We'll just, we can follow up with Micah directly. And yeah, and I think just in general, you know, the public comment is not really so much a question and answer. But if you have specific questions or comments directed to specific Councilors, you can always ask them questions or communicate with them directly. And I know that we can also get in touch with our affordable housing trust fund chair and members anytime. So feel free to email me and I can follow up with them and get information. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Marie will give you one more shot. We'll see if we can hear you, Marie. Name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you loud and clear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Marie. On the motion to receive and place on file by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, you guys. 25182, submitted by Mayor Brannon O'Connor and proposed wage adjustment for library union. I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approve the following amendments to revised ordinances, chapter 66, article two, city of Medford amendment to revised ordinance, chapter 66, article two, being ordained by the City Council of the City of Medford in Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserve, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formerly included as Article 2, Section 6631. Amend the figures as they presently appear next to the following title by adjusting each to reflect the following percentage wage increases and effective dates. Library, effective July 1, 2024. Increased base salary of all library unions by 3%. July 1, 2025, 2.5% increase. July 1, 2026, 2.25% increase. July 1, 2027, 2.25% increase. Community Resources Director Lisa Crowley will be available to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianna O'Kern, Mayor. Do we still have, do we want to hear from the director? All right. We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to waive the three readings and approve, ordain, approve to be ordained. All right. Motion to waive the three readings, approve to be ordained by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, the affirmative, the negative, the motion passes 2 5 1 8 3 donation acceptance trees, Medford for tree planting, dear president bears and members of the city council. I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approves under master law chapter 44 section 53 a a donation in the amount of 25,000 by trees, Medford to the department of public works, forestry division to fund public tree plantings, trees, DuPont, CPA manager and a representative of Trees Medford will be in attendance to address the council. Recognized manager DuPont. And you should be able to start your video if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Who's with us from Trees Medford, Teresa?
[Zac Bears]: That's all right.
[Zac Bears]: We're happy to take a donation, but we do want to hear about the great work Trees Medford does to raise the money.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any more questions for Manager DuPont? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Thank you, Teresa. Although I think you're here for the next one too. 25184 submitted by Mayor Brianna Leo Kern. Appropriation request, Community Preservation Committee. Dear President Bears and city councilors, on behalf of the CPC, I respect the request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the CPC requesting the appropriation of 55,000 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Shiloh Baptist Church of Medford to fund their ongoing ADA improvement project The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund, CPC recommendation letter attached incorporated, CPA manager DuPont will be in attendance to address the council. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Go ahead, Teresa.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager DuPont. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. For participation, if there's anyone who'd like to speak on a topic of their choosing for three minutes, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. All right, seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by, wait, that is a Collins motion? Oh, and Collins seconded. All right, great. Motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: 21st regular meeting, Medford City Council, November 18th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meeting of November 12th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the records, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Tseng to take the paper offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli, the communications from the Mayor and petitions, presentations and similar papers out of order, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Operator suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the city council sends our deepest condolences to the family of George Sacco. Mr. Sacco dedicated himself to public service as a member of the Medford School Committee from 1959 to 1962 and as our state representative from 1963 to 1974. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I also had the pleasure to help connect my cousin, Ian Koss is a Medford resident now who made the Big Dig podcast with, he's the host of that podcast. If folks have listened to it, I connected him with George a couple of years ago, and he was incredibly helpful to him on some of his research around the Big Dig, and I think also a little bit of maybe on the lottery podcast that came out a little later. So, you know, a great resource and a loss to our community.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, to approve. We'll take a vote and then we'll take a moment of silence. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. Please rise for a moment of silence. really quickly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Indy. Communications from the Mayor. 25177 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Proposed wage adjustment for police, patrol, and superiors union. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that City Council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances, Chapter 66, Article 2. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Medford in Chapter 66, Entitled Personnel, Article 2, Entitled Reserve, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formally included as Article 2, Sections 6631 to 6640, to amend the figures as they presently appear next to the following title by adjusting to reflect the following percentage wage increases and effective dates. Police Patrol and Police Superiors, effective July 1, 2022, 2.5% increase to the base salary of all patrol and all superiors union titles for a cost of living adjustment. Effective July 1, 2023, 3% increase to the base salary of all patrol and superiors union titles for a COLA and 1.5% for implementation of body-worn cameras and the requirements placed on the members of the association due to police reform legislation and the implementation of the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission. Effective July 1, 2024, 3% increase in base salary, 1.5% for implementation of BWC and post-commission. Effective July 1, 2025, 2.75% increase to base salary, 1% for associations agreement allowing city to petition the legislature to remove positions of chief and deputy chief from civil service. Effective July 1, 2026, 2.5 increase to the base salary. Effective July 1, 2027, 2.5% increase to the base salary. Human Resources Director Lisa Crowley will be available to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lingle Kern, Mayor. We have Director Crowley, I thought I saw earlier. Anything you want to present on this?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to waive the three readings and approve, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? I do see some representatives from our patrol and superiors union. You guys want to say anything? All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming to waive the three readings and approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25175, petition for amendment to common victuals license extended hours, Raza's Grill. To the Honorable City Council, City Councilors, the undersigned respectfully request an amendment for operating hours for our common victors license, Monday through Saturday, Monday through Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1 a.m., brief explanation to extend food and beverage service to late night patrons, reestablish late night patrons, which we had for many prior years. Business name, KLME, Inc., DBA, Razo's Grill, business address, 209 Mystic Avenue, business telephone, 781-396-2001. Business owner, Richard Razo. I think we have Mr. Arrazzo here. I recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Razo.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli was saying that you had requested to amend this request. So it's Thursday, Friday, and Saturday till 1 a.m. And then Monday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday until midnight.
[Zac Bears]: So the motion is to approve, uh, every night, seven, every day, 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. with a 30, 60, 90 day review. Uh, do we have any further questions from the council? Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, if you wanna check the minutes... Yeah, I can check the minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Arzo. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve the paper as proposed. So 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. 7 days a week with a 30, 60, 90 day review, seconded by Councilor Callahan. And I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan to approve a 30, 60, 90 day review. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 2-5-1-7-0, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, Bradbury Ave, and 4th Street. This is a proposed joint-owned pole at Bradbury Ave and 4th Street. You're hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 7 p.m. on a petition by Massachusetts Electrical Company and DBA National Grid for permission to install Bradbury Avenue and 4th Street. This is to install a new regulator station and it will be granted. We're sorry. We're for a request that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it will be granted a location for and permission to install a new regulator station, supervisory control and data acquisition cabinet in Bradbury Avenue, 4th Street, plan number W-0, W-0 number 9-0-0-0-2-2-0-0-5-1, originally dated June 18th, 2021, revised September 27th, 2024. and filed in the office of the city clerk, October 22nd, 2025. The engineering division has received this permission and recommends the grant of location to be approved with the following conditions, grant of location limited to the proposed cabinet, bollards and electrical conduits described in the plan before starting work. The contractor shall notify DigSafe of obtaining all applicable permits, obtain a trench permit pursuant to section 74.141 of the city ordinances, and that the trench permit application must include a street restoration plan. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked. Sidewalk and street restoration shall be done in consultation. With the engineering division and per the requirements of an approved trench permit and engineering directive three, this must include site inspection, concrete sidewalk must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the joints. Petunias concrete pavement over the trench shall be two inch milled and overlaid within the public way to an offset approved by the engineering division. Pavement markings must be restored. Project site must be swapped daily and kept free of debris. A detailed traffic management plan must be submitted for review prior to receiving a trench permit. And the plan indicates crossings at sewer, water, and drain mains with laterals. Gas mains shall maintain a vertical distance of 12 inches from all Medford utilities approved to the engineer. and signed Richard Lucio, Assistant City Clerk. So I'm going to recognize Diana Cuddy from National Grid to further present the paper, and then I'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Cuddy from members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Public hearing is open. If there's anyone who'd like to speak on this paper, either in favor against or otherwise. Ms. Cuddy.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter as part of the public hearing? Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Councilor Scarpelli has moved to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and then the negative. The motion passes 25171 petition for greater location National Grid Ross St. This is functionally the same petition, but just for Ross St with the same conditions. Diana, is there anything you'd like to add or anything about this site that is different from the previous petition?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Any questions from members of the council for Ms. Kennedy? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone who's in favor in opposition or otherwise has a comment on the matter. Ms. Cuddy?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who has a comment on this paper? Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Hearings 25160 submitted by Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. Proposed amendments to the Bedford Zoning Ordinance, Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District Map Change. This is a continuation of our public hearing from our last meeting. I know a number of councilors had said that they generally supported the paper, but wanted to see communications from the mayor, and I see Vice President Collins, so I'll recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I do see the Chief of Staff, if you want to speak on this paper, Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Councilor Leming, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Collins. Councilor Leming, then Councilor Callahan. I mean, it's the mayor's... I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I believe you said it was like 1,100, is that right?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, all right. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, would you like to speak? Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Do you, Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: I was just trying to turn it down a little bit. It's a little echoey.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by councilors? Seeing none, Madam Chief of Staff, anything?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's a motion of Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think I just want to add, um, you know, one of the things that came up tonight was councilor Kelly and saying, don't speak for everyone. Right. Um, and I think something that I realized pretty soon after, um, the mayor said, that's why I will not move forward with signing the extension until unless the following items are met. And it included the council accepting the Community Development Board's last recommendation on Salem Street rezoning. I'm just saying, it's very clear. I will not move forward unless the following items are met. We can call that whatever we want, but it's pretty clearly an exchange. We can use the Latin term for exchange if we want to or not, but it's an exchange. It's I will not do this unless you do that. It's on the city website. I'm reading it right now. It was clear to me by mid-August that I was not going to be able to, as an individual, negotiate on behalf of this body on this issue because it's too big. I applaud Vice President Collins for going back and forth with the mayor's office. When you're negotiating in this way, what needs to happen is a proposal needs to be presented and then Councilors need to be able to respond to that proposal and say, here are my issues with it. And then the mayor makes amendments to that proposal. And then there's a vote, right? Like that's what a negotiation looks like. And I think what's been breaking down here pretty clearly. And I honestly, I've kind of tried to stay out of it. I had one conversation with the mayor. Some of my stuff was in some of the emails that the mayor sent, you know, It's been made very clear that at least two or three members of this council, and I think it's ranging from Councilor Leming mentioned wanting to see actually the contract language itself. Councilor Lazzaro said, those bullet points seem comprehensive. I'd like them to be read out. Councilor Callahan said, I want it to be very clear what is being funded, how much is being funded. Councilor Scarpelli talked about neighborhood meetings. Councilor Tseng talked about more clarity. there needs to be something to negotiate with. And that a public position, here is what the mayor's proposal is, and to move this forward, unless the following items are met, right? That's also part of the negotiation process. It seems to me, Councilor Collins said that she felt that what the mayor and she had exchanged emails over, they were pretty close to something that Councilor Collins could accept. I think I heard that in varying terms from many councilors tonight. Maybe it's a little farther for Councilor Callahan, but a proposal needs to be announced and then there needs to be a chance for councilors to respond to it. The mayor could continue the, you know, one-on-one tour that the mayor was doing the other week and say, okay, here's what I wrote. Is that enough to move forward? Because as she wrote in July, I will not move forward with signing the extension unless the following items are met. It's a direct quote. I think it needs to be clear what that is. And you know, there needs to be a written proposal that people feel like is enough for them to respond to. And it's pretty clear tonight that at least three or four, maybe five Councilors don't feel that there is. I'm happy to engage one-on-one with the mayor when a public proposal has been released. And I can say, here's the things I agree with, here's the things that I don't. when it became clear to me like four months ago that that wasn't gonna happen, I kind of just said, okay, I'll wait for that. So I'm still waiting. There was a motion to continue the public hearing. We're not gonna reopen it. It's just gonna continue as the motion by Vice President Collins. Is there a second on it? This is Councilor Callahan. It's a motion to continue the public hearing to December 2nd, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the public hearing is continued to December 2nd. 25159, hearing notice. Notice of a public hearing, City of Medford. Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts and via Zoom on Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, November 14th, 2025. Purpose of this hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the FY 2026 property tax One, to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2026. Two, select an open space discount. 3. Select a residential exemption. Select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids and accommodation. TDD 781-393-2516. The City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. For additional information, contact the Office of the City Clerk at 781-393-2425. By order of the Medford City Council, signed, Richard Alicio, Assistant City Clerk. So what all that legalese means is that we have our property tax hearing tonight. We're going to be talking about the residential factor, which means setting the residential and commercial rates. We're going to be talking about, I think actually open space discount is in the hearing notice, but I didn't see it in the presentation, but maybe we'll be talking about that as well.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, the residential exemption and small commercial exemption. We have our chief assessor with us. Um, if you want to, uh, introduce tonight, give your presentation and then we'll hear from members of the council before we open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: I shared it.
[Zac Bears]: I'll share it. Give me one second. You can do the verbal introduction while I get it up.
[Zac Bears]: Give me one second here.
[Zac Bears]: All right. What are we seeing on the screen here? Is that the right thing? Oh, this one? All right.
[Zac Bears]: One second, we may be having a technical issue. Jim, are we good?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Chair, the recommendations are to adopt the residential factor of .905493, to not adopt a residential exemption and to not adopt the small commercial exemption?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Is that the last slide? That is the last slide. All right. I'll stop sharing for now. We can bring that up when we come back to a vote. I'm going to go to questions from members of the Council, and then we can open the public hearing. Let's hear from members of the Council. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, there's 8,000 units either in large apartments or two and three family buildings?
[Zac Bears]: And then there's how many single families?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Yeah, I think it's kind of a deja vu all over again moment, right? Every time we do this, you know, there's a lot of reasons why and why not other communities have adopted residential exemptions in the past. I think the way to explain the policy in general is pretty simple. You calculated a break even of $1,038,000. So if you live, if you're the owner of a residential property, and you live at that property, and it's your primary residence, and your house is worth more than $1,038,727, you would pay more in taxes. And if you are the same person living in a property, a residential house, it's your primary residence, you're the owner-occupant, and it's valued less than $1,038,727, you would pay less.
[Zac Bears]: It's an asymptote.
[Zac Bears]: Camera's too far from me. But basically, if your residential property is very lower than the values, $300,000 assessed value, $400,000 assessed value, you're paying a lot less. And if your residential property is 30 million, if it's a big apartment building, you're paying quite a bit more.
[Zac Bears]: But it essentially turns our flat rate that you pay, whether you're a small condo owner or a large apartment building owner company, into a graduated rate, a progressive rate. So if your property's worth a lot more, you pay more, and if your property's worth less, you pay less, and that breaks even at about a million dollars of property value.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Essentially, everybody's getting $300. If you're an owner-occupant, you're getting $300,000 off of your assessed value for your tax bill. whether you're, except if your value's that low. If you're at $500,000, you're getting $300,000 off. If you're at $30 million, you're getting $300,000 off, essentially.
[Zac Bears]: But because of that, the tax rate is higher for everybody. And that's basically how that works. That's how it pays for itself.
[Zac Bears]: $4 billion in value?
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Kelley.
[Zac Bears]: Andy, Andy, Andy. Right, yeah, that's what I was saying. If you own the property and you live in that property and it's your primary residence, you can get, essentially, your assessed value comes down $300,000. But in order to pay for that, the rate, right, the rate this year would be 8.6, if we adopt the split, and it would be 12.2 if we had the exemption. So if you're not owning, if you're not an owner-occupant, if you're a landlord or an owner, you know, someone owns a residential property and doesn't live in it, then they wouldn't get that discount.
[Zac Bears]: We requested this funding the last two budget cycles to request that the mayor put in the annual budget the funding to hire two people in the assessor's office to make this possible. We requested that for, I believe, the last two. We're in fiscal 26, right? It was in our budget recommendations for fiscal 26. I think they were in our budget recommendations for fiscal 25 as well to request that staff support to make it possible for us to take this vote.
[Zac Bears]: That would be a B paper to request a meeting of the administration finance committee.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Is that okay?
[Zac Bears]: Many of the whole to discuss funding for the assessor's office to be able to implement a residential exemption? Before March?
[Zac Bears]: I want to be clear that shouting out in the chambers generally is not a way to edit a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Anything further? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll take a vote on those three, but I actually, I have to open the public hearing first after questions from councilors. Are there any further questions from councilors for the chief assessor? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing on the assessment for the fiscal 26 tax levy classification. So is there, You've issued your recommendation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on the tax levy classification this evening? Either in person or on Zoom, if you're in the chamber, please approach the podium. If you are on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I just had it here. There's a list. Yeah, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there any further public comment either in person or on Zoom in this public hearing? We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy.
[Zac Bears]: Andy, thank you. I think we talked about it tonight. We are very interested in implementing this, but the appropriation has not been made to provide the staffing and the assessing office to make it possible.
[Zac Bears]: From what I heard from what the assessor says is essentially this, I mean, we're voting on this for the January bills, right, Jared? So that we would have, you would have four weeks to do 47 weeks of work.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I mean, I hear you. I think what we've heard from the assessor is very clear. If the mayor provides the money to the office, they can do the preparation work for us to vote on it. But if the mayor doesn't provide the money to make this possible, then the assessing office doesn't have the staff to implement this program.
[Zac Bears]: I've definitely heard from other communities that this is good in their communities.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. I'm going to go to Robert Carney on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Oh, here you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this paper in the public hearing on the tax classification either in-person or on Zoom? Seeing none, I'm gonna declare the public hearing closed. All right, we have a few items here. We have a B paper from Councilor Callahan to hold a committee of the whole meeting with the city administration for funding for the assessing department to implement a residential exemption in January or February. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Right, committee of the whole to, I guess, what are you asking from the city administration to have prepared for that meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Do you have that Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Committee of the whole research discussion about funding for the assessing department to implement a residential exemption. Great. By Councilor Callahan, this is a B paper seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes. We had three motions from Councilor Scarpelli. The first was to adopt a residential factor of 0.905493 for the fiscal year 2026 property tax levy. Is that a good vote? 0.905494. And do you need us to say anything else in the motion? All right, great. Motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. There's a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to not adopt a residential exemption for the fiscal year 2026 tax classification. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. So this is a motion to not adopt a residential exemption for fiscal year 2026 by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion passes. And then there was a motion by Councilor Scarpelli to not adopt a small commercial exemption, seconded by? Yes. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So I have an affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. Thanks, Jared. motions orders and resolutions to 5, 1, 7, 6, offered by president bears and Councilor Callahan. Whereas the mayor and city administration recently announced the receipt of a $200,000 grant for Medford zero waste initiative. And whereas as part of this initiative, the mayor announced that her administration would reduce tax collection, trash collection to once every two weeks, starting in July, 2027. And whereas the city council supports efforts to reduce waste increases to free weekly composting and limit cost growth of waste collection. that has hurt our city budget and whereas residents have very significant concerns about the impact of reducing trash collection to once every two weeks for residents and the need for greater efforts by the mayor to inform and engage residents regarding our solid waste collection program changes now therefore be it resolved by the medford city council that the mayor and city administration provide a report to the council and residents explaining the changes they are making to the city's waste collection program. Be it for the resolve that the mayor, city administration share all resources that they are making available to residents to reduce any negative impacts of these changes. Be it for the resolve that the mayor and city administration hold a public forum to hear from residents about their concerns and explore potential alternative options to move the city towards zero waste goals. Be it for the resolve that the city council appreciates the work of our DPW commissioner and planning development and sustainability director. The council requests that the mayor provide additional resources for our dedicated city staff so they have the capacity to effectively communicate with residents regarding the proposed timeline and reasoning for these changes, explore the benefits and costs of alternative timelines and plans, and outline a mitigation strategy to address any negative impacts. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. You know, I maybe see it a little bit differently, although we are co-sponsors of this resolution, I just, the city is not ready for a change of this magnitude and the way that it was announced was at the best burying the lead and at worst, deeply confusing and worrying. I also understand, right, maybe some of the motivations here outside of health insurance and pension costs. One of the things that is cost going up the fastest is our waste removal contract. The flip side of that is that the one thing that every resident in the way they interact with the city every week is trash and recycling and compost. It's the one thing that the city does for any resident in a one, two, three family home every week. And I think the idea of essentially announcing to the city that that's going to change in paragraph 10 of a press release that says we just got a big grant, not even a big grant. We just got a $200,000 grant and it's a $220 million city budget is not the way to do this. Even if I 100% understand the intent and agree with the goals, you know, we had a conversation with the administration two years ago, that said we're moving to a new waste contract, we're bringing in free composting, there's going to be a bunch of benchmarks and checks along the way, and at some point we're going to come back to you and say, we think we've done enough education of the public, we think that we have enough uptake on the composting program, we're seeing changes in the way that people are putting their trash out. And that that was going to then inform a process where you go out to residents and say, hey, we've done a lot together over the past few years around changing our waste stream. And we think that we now have met some conditions and there's enough time for us to have a conversation about making a change to trash. But this is not that. that groundwork laying, I have not seen it. We have not had a bunch of meetings in this body or we have not seen a bunch of public meetings and public forums hosted by the city saying, here's the update on the composting program. We're actually seeing that the trash, you know, our trash weight is going down, the bins are less full. We're not seeing any of the benchmarks that would lead us to believe that this is a good change. And I think to have not laid that groundwork and then for us to, you know, The fact that this was not the lead of the press release, that the press release wasn't titled City Planning to Move to Every Other Week Trash Removal in 2027, and then saying at least some of the stuff that we were told we were going to hear, I think has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I think it set up quite frankly, this program for failure, because I think there's not trust in it. And I think it's a yet another example where the resources for communication have not been provided to the people who are tasked with communicating about major changes. I heard that message loud and clear six months ago about zoning. And here we are again. about trash removal, where it's paragraph 10 of a wall of text posted on the website and not something where we've been laying the groundwork, not something where in July, right? There's been discussions for months. Why in July of this year did the city not say we want to start laying the groundwork for this? And I think the hardest part of that is that we do not have other than the voice that we're putting forward and the requests that we're making for information, the city council doesn't have a vote on this. City council can't say, no, this isn't happening or no, it has to be delayed. It doesn't sit with us. So I have a lot of concerns about the way this was rolled out. And I don't think, I think, you know, it's been, interesting to have conversations with residents of all political stripes. We just had an election where a lot of people voted for one side and a bunch of other people voted for another group of folks. And I've heard from folks on both sides of that. who are very frustrated with this. And some of those folks are saying, I would never support this, period, no matter what the rollout was. And some folks are saying, this actually, I support it 100%, but I'm worried about, and it would work for my house, but I'm worried about the people who it won't work for, and I don't know what the plan is, and I'm worried about what the negative impacts are going to be. So that's why I co-sponsored this resolution with Councilor Callahan. I think really, put the cart before the horse on this one. And I'm very concerned about this change. What are councilors saying?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: All right, George I had. And maybe we could take these all in as amendments on the main paper is that fine to do that. Yeah, I'd be resolved the city administration explore using fines for for illegal dumping to fund the waste removal contract. be resolved that the Board of Health provide a report on expected impact of moving to biweekly trash collection on the city's rodent problem.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Tseng, do you want to read yours again?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right, we'll incorporate all of that, unless Councilor Kallion, you have an objection to incorporating those amendments into our resolution? All right. Are there further comments from members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any further comments from members of the council on this resolution? Seeing none, we'll take a public input on this resolution, both in-person and on Zoom. In-person, you can make a line behind the podium, and on Zoom, you can raise your hand on Zoom. We'll alternate between in-person and on Zoom, and each person will have three minutes. Start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. Robert Carney, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Robert. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go back to Zoom. We'll go to Cheryl on Zoom. Cheryl, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: George was on the school committee at age four or five, I think. Judy Hauser.
[Zac Bears]: Let's let Ralph have a speech.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ralph. And I definitely appreciate the comment. We aren't allowed, the seven of us, to meet with her in private because of the open meeting law, but the mayor is always welcome at our meetings. We've had some really great, I mean, they've been difficult, but during budget hearings, the mayor has come down, we've worked things out directly, and I think that's been a productive approach. So the mayor is invited to every council meeting to have those conversations with us. We would welcome the mayor at any of our meetings. Thank you. Thanks. Any further public comment by anyone who hasn't spoken yet on this matter? All right. Thanks. Do you want three minutes or?
[Zac Bears]: I just didn't know if you wanted to.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. You can answer.
[Zac Bears]: I wasn't sure if you were coming from the public process or if you wanted me to finish that before you spoke.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken on this who'd like to speak? Seeing none, is there anyone who's spoken on this who'd like to speak on it again for one more minute? Great. Sorry, Nina.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Anyone else who's already spoken who'd like to go again? All right, public comment on this paper is closed. I'll recognize the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to be clear. We can't take a vote to change course. The mayor administers the contracts for the city. So if the mayor wants to change course, we're happy to have that proposal discussed before us. But we'd never voted to adopt a contract. We never negotiated a contract. We never signed a contract. We authorized the administration to enter into a contract greater than three years. We had meetings three years ago and two years ago where we heard what the general outlines of the contract would be and that at some point in the contract, there would be an option to go to every other week trash service. And then we were told that the city would tell us when we were meeting goals and felt that they had the plan to move forward with that. I'm just as the leader of this council, you're not gonna say, oh, if the council wants to vote, we can't vote to do this. Only the mayor can decide to do this. So if the mayor, I appreciate a lot of what you just said, basically most of what you just said until the sentence where you said, if you guys wanna do it, feel free, we can't. So we could take a vote tonight and say, no more, trash every week forever. It would have no force and effect. zero force and effect because we don't sign, negotiate, administer contracts on behalf of the city. The city's chief executive does that. I think you heard from a lot of us tonight that we wanted to hear about the communications plan. We wanted to hear about the rollout. We wanted to hear about the goals that we were meeting to get there. You know, I have had conversations with planning development, sustainability staff, with DPW staff, talking about, you know, composting is getting better. We're at 30, I think we're at 35% now, or maybe it's higher than that. I'm not sure because the report hasn't been presented. I think the issue we have here tonight is we were told a couple years ago that the administration was going to come back and talk about what their plan was to roll this out. And instead what happened is a press release went out And in paragraph 11, it said, we're doing this in July 2027. And it didn't say, here's the upcoming public forum. Here's the place that you can have a conversation about it. If I can remember, I don't even know that the press release mentioned that there was a PDS open house the next business day after the press release went out. And I think there are very clear and simple things that could have been done differently. even just changing the timing of the press release, changing the rollout, making it clear to residents, we know you're going to be concerned about this. This is a major change to the main way that you interact with your city on a weekly basis, and here are the ways that you can engage with that. And we haven't decided, oh, July 2027, it's happening. We said, we're gonna have six months of meetings. Our intent right now is to do this in July, 2027. We think that's what we need from a cost basis perspective, and we'll go and do that another time. But none of that happened. It was paragraph 10, or Cheryl said 11, of a press release. And the headline of the press release was, City Gets Grant. It just seems backwards. And I think it really undermines our goals. So that's my deepest concern here. It's, you know, you're at the line in the race. You're like, we have a very ambitious goal that we wanna achieve. It's gonna take talking to thousands of people and essentially trying to get thousands of households to change how they behave. And like first step out of the gate, we fall. And that's what worries me. And I think like it means that maybe the city budget gets impacted because maybe people don't want to adopt this goal now because a bunch of people who maybe could have been open to the idea of it are now reflexively opposed to it. I myself kind of fall into that bucket, right? Like I'm not saying out of like on principle, I'm against this no matter what. There are people who feel that way. It must be every week. And I want to listen to them too, but it just feels like, the rollout was botched. And that the first time we really were talking about it, at least the first time in the past two years, since we had some meetings several years ago where it was like, this might be an option, people felt like they were getting two-stepped on it. So that's just where I'm coming from. Vice President Collins. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, Vice President Collins, one second. What's up?
[Zac Bears]: OK. I appreciate that. I think what I'm saying is, you know, if folks are, you know, I want you guys to put out your plan for how you're gonna communicate this. I want residents to talk to you about it. And if the mayor feels like she needs to revisit her decision, we're happy to have her put a paper on our agenda to talk about that. It's my perspective. I don't know if other councilors have other perspectives on that. Vice President Collins, then Councilor Leming, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We do have a motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. One second, thank you. Motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. It's the paper that we're It's the resolution and as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Scarpelli. So we have the original paper as amended with Councilor Scarpelli's points and Councilor Tseng's points. All right. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna recognize Councilor Tseng, but I don't think, right, this is what people don't want. We raise our concerns and it's, you know, guess we're not going to sit idly by. Once more under the breach, the cannons fire. Um, we're going to start quoting people from meetings years ago. If we want to talk about that meeting, right. It was, uh, there's an option in the contract to go to every other week. And here's all the things we're going to do to make that a reality. And here we are today. Those things weren't done. And it feels like it's not going to be able to be made reality. Um, I think the really hard thing I have here is, right, like, no one talked to the city council about putting out a press release, and now it's our fault? You wrote it. Own it. You wrote it. Own it. If you want to include us, as we've been asked to be included, we can't even get our stuff posted on the city website. The mayor won't send out city council newsletters using the city newsletter list because it's her list. So no, I'm not gonna be accountable for your press releases. And this council is not gonna be accountable for your press releases. It's not gonna happen. We're not covering for other people's mistakes. Don't put it in paragraph 10. That's it. Say what you're doing. We're going to every other week trash. Say it six months ago. Say it and say there's a public forum. There's three public forums over the next few months where we're gonna talk about how to make it work. Don't spin it. in a press release that says big grant. We got a grant 200,000. Also, you're losing a week of trash. I didn't write that press release. So I'm happy to collaborate. If you want to collaborate on every press release that goes out, we'll vote on every one before it goes out. I'm here for it. Sadly, that's not what the city charter says. Strong mayor, weak council. Own it. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Scarpelliian-Seng. Do we want to amend it to just, we can apparently vote to just end it right now if we want. Sorry, I had no idea that we were the mayor. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Callahan to take paper 25-124 off the table, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and a negative. The motion passes. Paper 25124, tree committee ordinance. And there's an amended copy of the tree committee ordinance at the back of our packets. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Callahan to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Councilor Lazzaro. This is This is first reading. It is. It hasn't been advertised yet. It's first reading. It was tabled in council, but it was never approved for first reading. So this is an approval for first reading. Sorry. Well, you could move to waive the three weeks if it requires unanimous consent. Seriously or not? Do you want to waive the three readings and approve and ordain? All right. On the motion by Councilor Callahan to waive the three readings and approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: This has gone through a lot of revisions.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think it goes without saying that this went through councilors over like three councils, so definitely former Council President Morell, Councilors who served with us in the 2020 to 2022 term as well. All right. On the motion by Councilor Callahan to approve, to ordain, waive the three readings and ordain, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Is there any public comment on this? No one has raised their hand on Zoom. Anyone in the chamber? Julia, you're a champ for coming to this for one thing and sticking it out to the end. Oh, Micah.
[Zac Bears]: All right, and we have a comment on Zoom. Meg. Meg Mars, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Meg. Any further public comment on this proposed ordinance? Seeing none, on the motion to ordain for third reading by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, waiving the three readings. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on anything? Come on up. Yes. We've got one person. You have a question? All right, we'll take it. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it's always the 11th, and that moves around.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Lisa, for your comment. And I just want to let you know, and maybe Councilor Leming could speak a little more to this. You know, it doesn't always get mentioned at the city council meetings, but the city did have a couple of events for veterans day. I think there were some service oriented events. I think there's some stuff going on over the next month. So it doesn't always come up here, but the city was doing some, some veterans day related work. I don't know Councilor Leming, if you want to mention, I think you attended an event. Yeah. Understood. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate your comment. Thanks for sharing it. And I'll go to the podium, name, and address for the record. Please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There's a meeting in the chambers. It's the city council's public health and community safety committee chaired by councilor Lazzaro. 6 p.m. Wednesday, November 19, 6 p.m. I recognize Councilor Lazzaro. You want to share anything more about that, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium. Julia, I know you said you had a question. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I honestly, A, I'm also trying to remember things that happened 30 months ago at this point. My understanding is that you're largely correct, that the second truth is correct, that composting is not doing composting is not costing us so much that we can't do trash every week. The issue is that the contract for waste removal has been going up at a very high rate, and we pay a lot for basically the weight of trash and also recycling.
[Zac Bears]: But I don't know, there were a bunch of other factors and considerations that were supposed to be discussed about the possibility of moving to every other week trash. Like basically, if I remember correctly, they were like, well, we want 4,000 people on composting the first year, 8,000 the second year, 12,000 the third year, and then we'll feel like maybe we could make a decision about going to every other week trash after that point. We're in year... We're at 18 months of the new contract, so we're in the middle of year two. I don't know that we're at 8,000 households, you know, even using the composting system, and then I don't know what the plan is around that. And it sounded like, from what the Chief of Staff said tonight, that A, there is some, there is a plan. It just hasn't been put out and, you know, they talked about doing this before they said what their plan to do it was. We don't know what that plan is. I don't know if it's gonna meet the conditions of our resolution, quite frankly. I think that's my big concern. I don't know the answer. That's what I remember from 30 months ago. And I think the real answer here is the city will have to pay to keep every week trash, right? We were gonna have to do that with or without this plan. We've been having to do that for 15 years, figure out how to pay for the trash contract. and the mayor could present a plan that says here's the trade-off, or here's how we're going to pay for it, or like Councilor Scarpelli said, is there a way to direct fines and fees from certain trash-related things into the program? But I think the real issue is we don't know what the mayor's plan is other than that. She's now announced that we're doing this, kind of.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's the really the most important thing is we need to get accurate information, understand the actual cost of everything, and then people will have a better understanding of what the choices are before the city.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Any further public comment on the motion adjourned by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have a motion passes meeting adjourned. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So one second.
[Zac Bears]: Present. And I'm noting Councilor Collins was present on Zoom. When she comes in, we'll note her presence. Okay. Five present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. 25178, submitted by the author.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, now my mic is on. Sorry, Peter, one second. That's okay. Just before I recognize you, just want to say thank you to Director Hunt. Just wanted to note, the mayor and I were non-voting members on the committee, and I did have one question there's a vote that we need to take to do surplus property. I guess, are we 100% sure how many approvals this is gonna need from the council? There's the surplus property vote. Is there also a vote on the lease? And then is there also a zoning consideration?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Director Hunt before I turn this over to Peter Spellios? One question, I have Councilor Fleming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I'll turn this over to Peter. Peter, I know you have a presentation you should be able to share on Zoom and take it away.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can.
[Zac Bears]: We can see your screen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Peter. All right, do we have questions from members of the council at this time for Peter about the presentation or the project? Sounds like there's still some work left to do, so I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarapelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. I mean, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Do we have any further questions or comments from members of the Council? Seeing none, Peter, is there anything else you'd like to add at this time about kind of next steps and where we go from here?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Peter. And if you could let us know, you know, when some of those informational meetings and, and engagement sessions are happening and can forward that to me and I'll send it to the clerk's office to share with members of the council so that they can be a part of those as well. Please let us know. Absolutely. Great. And I'm going to turn it over to director Hunt for a final comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. I will go to the podium for public participation. Name and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes. One second there, Andy. That mic's not working. Not sure why it's not working. Oh, one second, Andy, hold on. The more you tap it, I think the more trouble we may have. I'm not able to turn it on. Jim, could you maybe reset it and Emily could we use your microphone for a minute? Oh, now I'm having trouble with that one. Great. Well, no one will be able to hear you on the recording. Give us just a minute here.
[Zac Bears]: Andy, if you could finish your comment and then we'll see what answers we can get.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what would be the what?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll write that down. Anything else you want to say on this?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yeah, if you could.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Andy. We'll work on getting some answers to those questions. All right. Seeing no further public comment and no further questions from councilors, is there a motion? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. We'll have our regular meeting in just a few minutes and this committee
[Zac Bears]: 20th regular meeting medford city council november 12 2025 is called to order mr cody please call the roll look callahan vice president collins council
[Zac Bears]: That's right.
[Zac Bears]: Your bike's off by the way.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25174 offered by President Bears. Resolution to congratulate Medford Elections Commission team and all candidates in 2025 municipal election. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Medford Elections Commission and their team in the elections office and all of our poll wardens and poll workers and polling location staff members on their exceptional administration of the 2025 municipal election. Be it further resolved that we congratulate all the candidates who ran for office in the 2025 municipal election. I just want to thank our elections team. I think they did a really smooth job this year. saw very few complaints. And this was after our last municipal election, where we had a lot of meetings and reports and process improvements. And I think we've talked about it in this body several times. So I think that went much better than our last election. I think that is a testament to really hard work by our Elections Commission and our election staff. They are in their own meeting right now in room 214. You can pop by and say hello. I went by and thanked them and they said they'd love to be here, but they're certifying the election. So just wanted to thank them. Is there anyone else who wants to comment on this? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes of the affirmative and on the negative the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of October 28th, 2025 are passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Per advice of council, I'm going to acknowledge the review and continue non-disclosure of city council executive session minutes dated August 19th, 2025 under the open meeting law. No vote is needed to be taken, but we're going to put this on every so often while those executive session minutes are not being disclosed. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take communications from the Mayor 25-172 and 25-173 out of order. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 25172 submitted by Mayor Brianne Lungo-Koehn, Medford Housing Authority Appointment, Lawrence Nargi. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body, in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the appointment of the following individual effective immediately for a term through June 30th, 2029, as a member, as cited in the reference statute. This is Medford Housing Authority appointment. Larry Nargi, 40 Andrew Street, Medford MA, 02155. A copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Do we have a representative of the administration or the person being appointed present either in person or on Zoom? You can raise your hand on Zoom or I'm not seeing anyone in the chamber. Chancellor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Minister Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none of the negative. The paper is tabled 25173 submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor, Medford Housing Authority appointment, Lhasa Julie Childs. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appoint Los Angeles Childs, 39 Greenleaf Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts, to the Medford Housing Authority for a term to expire September 30th, 2029. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Do we have the appointee? We do, wonderful. Do you know if anyone's coming from the administration or? Okay, all right. Well, if you could come to the podium and just tell us a little bit about why you are planning to, or why you're being appointed and anything else you'd like to share.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. If councilors have any comments or questions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, I'm going to go to seconded by, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve the appointment. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: He's still having trouble, but... Can we just motion to take it off the table?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to take 25172 off the table, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The paper is off the table. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: The motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Severing the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Hearings 25160, submitted by Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Salem Street Corridor District map change. Hearing Notice 25-160, Legal Notice of Public Hearing, City of Medford. This Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom on Tuesday, November 12th, 2025 at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, November 7th, 2025. The purpose of this hearing is to hear the Medford Community Development Board on the following item. proposed amendment to the City of Medford zoning map, specifically to amend the Salem Street Corridor District to rezone the parcels currently zoned MX-2 within the Salem Street and Park Street node to MX-1 as shown on the map entitled Salem Street Corridor Zoning, dated March 3rd, 2025. Project materials can be viewed in the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Room 308, or on the City's website for the Community Development Board and clicking Current CD Board Filings. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids and accommodations. TDD 781-393-2516. The city of Medford is an EEOAA 504 employer. For additional information, contact the office of the city clerk at 781-393-2425 by order of the Medford city council, signed Richard Alicio, assistant city clerk. All right, so we do have a letter from the community development board. from September 15th. We referred this proposed amendment to the Community Development Board, and they met on it in a public hearing, and they have sent it back to us. I'm not sure, or at least I'm not seeing a letter since then, but we do have Danielle Evans from the Planning Office, and Danielle, if you could present on this amendment, let us know what it is about, and then we will go to questions and comments from councilors, and then I'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And the Community Development Board referred this back. Did they make any amendments or as much as their recommendation?
[Zac Bears]: So their recommendation is to approve the amendment? Yes. Great. The mayor's communicated to us and communicated to the public that approval of this amendment is essentially she wants us to approve this before we can move forward on the zoning project. Do you have any updates on that relative to this or is anyone else from the office planning to attempt to talk about that?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was just wondering, I know the council received an email today kind of with some generalities. I didn't know if you had like a document or anything about that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the council for senior planner Evans? Or general comments on this amendment as proposed?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for Planner Evans? You guys? All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Council that means online, my bad, Matt, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Danielle, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what was the process under the old zoning for medical offices in general in this area?
[Zac Bears]: I guess there was that proposed medical project that was, that was special permit community development board. So, okay. And that's what Salem Street was before, I think.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. Yeah, it never came to us.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Danielle.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And so Councilor Leming's question was, so under the old zoning, and I believe this was an apartment district, then the special permit granting authority for any medical office was the Zoning Board of Appeals.
[Zac Bears]: And then under the current zoning, which is MX2, medical offices, large medical offices are not allowed at all already. And the neighborhood medical office, which is as councilors are noted, kind of this creation to have just very limited and small, basically, I think the argument was low impact. But I think Councilor was are also speaks to a real point that it's, it's about a specific, specific type of use of medication assisted treatment that's currently allowed in the MX two zone with a special permit from the community development board.
[Zac Bears]: And then the proposed amendment, reducing moving from MX2 to MX1 would mean no large medical offices, which is already how it is now. And then also no neighborhood medical with those limitations.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And Councilor Leming, there was another part to your question.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Do we have any other questions for Planner Evans? Seeing no questions from the council for Planner Evans, thank you. Thank you so much. And we will then hear from councillors on their thoughts on this amendment, and then I will open the public hearing to people who want to speak on this amendment. Any Councilors would like to speak? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And just before I recognize Councilor Collins, I just want to echo you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think the issue that I had was we didn't, Mayor didn't give us the money for the meetings, you know, and that was really a big problem, I think, in hindsight. we tried to move forward with the not enough resources to do it because we thought it was really important. And yeah, I mean, and Councilor Callahan went over the timeline, right? That could have been remedied on month two, not month 17. So yeah, I just wanted to note that piece of it. Like, as you noted, right, we were on that last council together and we put out the RFP that said we wanted the meetings. We got the proposals back that said, well, with $150,000, this is all we can do for you. And so I am grateful that it looks like we're going to have a more robust package that really focuses on that so that we can do that piece of the work that I you know, and I was talking about it back in July right if we had if we had gotten that funding and those resources from the mayor earlier on, then I think we would have been able to explain, A, explain better what the proposals were and hear from more people about how to change them. Because when we did hear from people, we made a lot of changes. Even this one change here was one of 12 changes that was suggested and we did 11 of them, right? So yeah, I really hope we can move forward better with those resources to do zoning right. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comments from members of the Council at this time on this proposal? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing for comments in person and on Zoom. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. You'll have three minutes. If you are on Zoom, please rename yourself to have a first name and a last name. Otherwise, I will not recognize you on Zoom. We're not gonna have Zoom bombers. So we'll start at the podium. I'm gonna ask for your name and address for the record. Give me one second, because I need to get the timer set up. I really hope it works. All right. So we have some hands on Zoom. I'm going to alternate between in-person and Zoom. We're going to start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Paulette, I'm going to let you make your comment. I'll write down what your questions are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Paula, just really quickly, and I think Danielle already said it, and Emily, but under the MX2, it was only this neighborhood medical definition, which actually came out of the community meeting Councilor Scarpelli was talking about. So it was open later in the morning, limited hours, less than five employees, and a very small square foot. That's what the current is. If this amendment was accepted, then no medical at all.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. All right, I'm gonna go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Rebecca Davidson on Zoom. Rebecca, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, Rebecca, you should be able to start your video. And if I could just get your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Direct your comments to the chair, please.
[Zac Bears]: I know, it's just the rules. Thank you, though.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you. It's just that we ask people to direct it to me. I take the heat.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you, Ralph. You're over time. If you want to speak again, we will come back around for another minute after.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Ralph. I'm going to go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Zachary Chertok on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. And we'll go back to in-person. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Nick, I'm going to just pause you there. I can answer that and I'll give you the rest of your time. Sure. It was on me. not on Rich Alicia or anybody else. As you may know, we've been without a city clerk for some time here. Rich has been filling in. I've actually been doing all the agendas myself and it was early Friday morning. It did go up on the events calendar and was linked in the folder on the website. I didn't press the, and it was posted in the clerk's office. I didn't press the publish button on civic clerk, cause that's my job right now, but that's on me. I'm sorry. When I got heard from Rich, that's when I pressed the button. So my apologies for that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go back to Zoom. Cheryl Rodriguez, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes, it was, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. We have a few more people on Zoom, so it'll be back and forth. I'm going to go to Patricia Cherry on Zoom. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment, Patricia, looking forward to our meeting.
[Zac Bears]: All right, back to the podium. Oh, sorry, there you go. You're on now, my bad.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to Zoom. We'll go to Donna Silva on Zoom. Donna, I'm going to ask you to unmute. And if you could provide your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Back to Zoom. We'll go to Jane Marcus. Jane, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, then we'll come back to the public hearing. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go to Zoom. We'll go to Megan on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, Megan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will go back to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, what Councilor Scott probably said, he was on camera, is that actually the city solicitor is no longer with the city. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Just really quickly, before I go back to answer the question, legal counsel was part of the discussion on the development of the neighborhood medical definition. I think there's kind of a Councilor Tseng our Harvard Law School student can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but there's kind of two elements of this. As written, council said, this doesn't discriminate against anyone. But now we're in a situation where also the intent of the bodies creating this definition comes into play. And like, obviously, the discussion tonight is going to be part of any record on legislative intent. And I think that's really where a question may or may not come in. As Councilor Lazzaro noted, this has been created to solve a problem without just to address something that people want to address without actually saying what it is and how that will be discussed if this ever were to come into a court of law, I think is a really open question. I don't know. I'm no lawyer. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go back to the public hearing. We have Michael Dewberry on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. appreciate your comment. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. got a couple more going to go back to zoom Sophie are on zoom name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. going to go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Andy. We're checking on channel 22, but it did seem to be up, and Jim is going to confirm. We'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Barry Ingber. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no one else in person, we'll stay on Zoom. We'll go to Miranda Briseño. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Certain businesses require certain licenses, some don't. And then there's also the special permit condition for zoning, which is actually an even higher condition than that. An example, if you're serving hot food, you need to get a certain type of license. If you're a lawyer's office, I don't think you have to get any kind of license. Those are kind of, that's a very, very oversimplified answer.
[Zac Bears]: The MX zoning allows for a first floor commercial and then housing above it.
[Zac Bears]: That's again a somewhat complicated question. At really any significant scale, a project has to go through what's called site plan review. And that's through the planning board, through the community development board. And then it again goes back to zone. Basically, there's three zoning can say three things I can say mixed use building. Yes, that means that it's by right and that doesn't mean there's nothing else after that point. It can be a special permit and then there's a special permit granting authority or it can say no. And that's, it's not allowed at all. In this case, in an MX zone, a mixed-use building is generally by right, but it still has to conform to all of the other conditions. And if it's over a certain size and scale, it goes through a site plan review process through the Community Development Board, and there's kind of public engagement through that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Any is the only word I have. Development over a certain size, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Mixed, yeah. MX is, yeah, it's shorthand for mixed.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. All right, we'll go back to Zoom. I'll go to Genesis Perez. Genesis, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much for your comment. We will stay on zoom. I will go to Caitlin Robinson, Caitlin name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We will stay on zoom we'll go to run being name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Last person on Zoom, seeing no one in the chamber, I will go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the comment. Is there anyone who hasn't yet had a chance to speak who would like to speak? Seeing none, is there anyone who's already spoken who'd like to speak for one more minute? I'm seeing one at the podium. Ralph, we'll take you for one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate the comment, Ralph. And I think, you know, something for me, you know, people can feel the mayor has a reason for this, at least that she communicated to someone for wanting this amendment. you know, and there's been so much conversation around why the council didn't adopt this one, but did adopt that one. I think something that got missed for me all the way back in March, I think it was said more clearly in the Community Development Board meeting, which I hadn't actually looked at until after we had looked at this, after we had voted. was, I think, the point that I think Danielle made and maybe someone else behind the rail made, which is that, by and large, the six-story piece of this isn't even possible in that area anyway. And I think if that point had—if we had gotten more information and kind of a clearer communication on that and that signal had come through the noise in the meeting, that may have changed this specific decision, you know, many, many months ago. And I think it's both a testament to and a warning on what Councilor Leming made the point of, right? There were a lot of people who came to our meeting on March 11th and said, we'll have every recommendation except this one. We'll have every recommendation except going from MX1 to MX2. And we heard that and we said, okay, we heard from the community development board, there's a lot of great recommendations, but we also just heard from a bunch of people in this meeting that they want this one not to be adopted. And then I didn't even remember hearing that piece of information that's like, well, the MX to six story piece is really hard here anyway it actually may be feasibility and logic wise isn't the answer, you know, going from three to six versus three to four. And I think it speaks to. how we need to handle this, having the resources, having the communication, the mayor appropriating actually significant and sufficient resources to accomplish the goals that we need to accomplish and not trying to do things on a shoestring and not trying to do things, do really important things without the resources. And you know, I appreciate what you said, right? Going from three to four, that's one thing, going from three to six feels really different. So I appreciate that. I think we're done with public comments, so I'll just say I'm pretty much where a lot of folks who've spoken tonight are. We need to move forward on this really important project for our city. I don't really have a huge issue from the density question perspective about the MX2 to MX1. I could vote for this amendment. I would really like to see what is exactly the plan going forward. If this is a quid pro quo, if this is, you know, unless you do this, we don't do the zoning project, any part of it, then what is that zoning project? What's the commitment? I think a couple of people asked for public commitment. I had a good conversation with the mayor today. I feel like it's getting somewhere, but I wasn't sure from the email that we got, you know, what are we starting when? What's in each phase of the process? If we're doing a new RFP to bring in all those resources and have the funding for them, you know, when does that happen? And that's just really what I think needs to get ironed out personally. That's just my perspective individually, which I've tried to hold off on saying until we move through the discussion. I'll go to Councilor, actually Councilor Leming had to stand up first and then you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lueb and Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion from Councilor Callahan to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion on the motion? Do you want to, sorry, I didn't know if that was a motion or not. You said you had like an intent to move, but okay. You would like to, I mean, we could do a motion to approve. We could do a straw poll. If we do a motion to approve and then it goes down.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Um, there's a motion from councilor Callahan to continue for one week. So we'll, we will have this on next week. The mayor could say what the plan is going forward before next week.
[Zac Bears]: All right. We have a motion from Councilor Callahan to continue the public hearing for one week, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further discussion on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I thought I heard it. Six days from now, we're going to talk about it again. I think we've made some progress. All right. So seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the public hearing is continued for one week. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take from the paper, paper number 25-105. This was the Mayor's veto of the amended Values Line Local Investments Ordinance. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Semi-affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Motion of vice president Collins to override seconded by council Lazzaro. Is there further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I just want to say for the record that I think Councilor Scarpelli's position is fair given the context of what this administration has said and done, right? Like they've raised questions providing no answers. And that has been their process throughout this ordinance. I think it also was something that we saw in the discussion that we just had, right? Feels like we've gotten to a better place on the zoning. We feel like maybe we're close to a deal, but the answers, it's like, we can't just operate on feelings and vibes and questions. We need to operate on plans and answers. And, you know, I get it. Like, I think one of the reasons that I feel just like this whole process around this specific ordinance, the values aligned investments ordinance, like I've talked about my principles. I've, I've said them very clearly. I've, I've, cried in very public meeting for a couple different times about it. I'm sure, you know, my mom's basement's full of my tears or whatever they're saying. But, you know, like there's emotions and values and this is a meaningful thing. And I started working on this almost a year ago. And for the first five or six months, it was, trying to meet with this administration to get their input, to get input from legal counsel. There was a whole process around that. Then we got a letter back from counsel. I incorporated like 95% of what they sent over and KP Law said, well, here's our issues with the first draft. Can you make these changes? And I said, cool, great. Yes, we can. Then the administration, I sent the new draft. The administration says, okay, we still have these more questions. Can you meet with retirement board? Can you meet with the commissions of trust funds? Can you meet with the treasurer? I met with all of them, and I incorporated more changes. Then we came back with another draft. And then we moved forward on that. The administration came to that meeting, and they said, well, we still have yet these issues with it. I know we've reviewed it twice, and you've incorporated most of what we've said. We still have more issues. We still have more questions. But at that time, I think this was August, we said, can you please send us two memos? One is a legal analysis and your legal objections, so we can look at those. And one was a set of policy objections. Like, if you just disagree with this as a policy, like you don't support this policy for political or whatever reasons, tell us that in one document, and then tell us the parts of this that you think are a problem with the law in another document. And we never got either of those documents. So we got an email a little bit before our meeting in September that some of us never even got. And that was frustrating. And then we voted for it to try to get back, you know, maybe some, I think that was the first reading we said, please send us some comments because it has to be advertised and then we'll have a third reading vote. We never got those, those, those things. So we took a third reading vote. Then the mayor just sends us back a veto and You know, okay, I disagree with this for these open questions, but it wasn't here are the things you need to change to make this work. It was never here are the answers. We have questions, we've looked into it. Here are our answers. Here's what's workable on our end. Councilor Collins tabled it a few weeks ago, giving the administration yet more time to come back to us and say, here's why we vetoed. We've looked into the questions. Here are the answers. Here's how we think we can get to yes on this. no response, no communication, no answers to our questions. And so if someone, my fellow colleague here says I feel really worried about the unanswered questions that the mayor's asked, I get that. But I just ask what will make them answer the questions. And at this point, we have something before us We put it into the law. If they're really worried about it, now they'll just have to finally send us the memo we asked for three months ago that says, these are the things that we think are wrong and we think should be changed. Because now it's an amendment to an ordinance. And the only way that you can do that is by writing an ordinance and writing language. So I wish that wasn't the process. I wish the last 10 months could have been four months and they could have been collaborative. And like, it wasn't the moving of the goalposts where, you know, every time we incorporate all the changes, it's still not enough. It wasn't that. That's not how the administration operates. It's not how they chose to operate on this. And, you know, it's just a lot of last minute stuff. I get it, you know, I think one of the main reasons that I hear this administration is like well we're doing a lot of work and you know it feels like triage mode all the time because there's not enough people who work in this building. I that's why I ran for office right. But at a certain point work has to get done. And if we're not going to fix the zoning to raise the money to hire more people to make this building work better. And we're not going to actually spend less time on this by doing it right the first time instead of having time after time after time after time of moving the goalposts and doing the legal analysis, right? It's just like, you can call it pennywise pound foolish, you can call it poor time management, you could call it being overwhelmed. Like there's a million different explanations, and I'm sure that the folks in the mayor's office have a really different feeling and interpretation about why it's hard to run this city than maybe we do. But at some point, something's gotta give. And if these are serious questions that the administration wants to put the time into to tell us what they think the answers are, we will have an ordinance, and every ordinance can be amended. And we are here for that process. I think too often we end up in this position where we feel like we have to do something we don't have to do, or we're asked to do something we don't have to do because we never got the answers that we asked for, or we didn't get the resources that we needed, or the funding wasn't appropriated, or the staff aren't there. I don't want to give a preview, but next week we're doing the tax classification hearing. Something we asked for in the budget was the staffing in the assessor's office so that we could really do a homeowner residential tax exemption. the funding was never appropriated, the staff were never hired, and we're gonna get told next week that that's not possible to do. And I'm a lot more interested in building the city we know is possible than continuing to be the city of no. So I'm gonna vote yes. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there discussion by members of the public on this matter? There are two hands on Zoom. If there's anyone at the podium, we'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. Oh. Yes, yes, podium first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zachary Turcotte on Zoom. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. Can you hear me? This is my first time doing this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have two folks who haven't spoken yet on Zoom. Is there anyone else in the chamber who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak? That one's just stretching. All right, we'll go to Munir Germanus. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Genesis Perez on Zoom. Genesis, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who would like to speak on this who hasn't spoken yet? All right, seeing none, we'll go back to the podium. We have Micah for a minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further comment by members of the public on this item? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to override the Mayor's veto of the values aligned local investments ordinance. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Piers. Yes, 16 affirmative, one of the negative, the motion passes. All the rights require two thirds majority, six one is higher than two thirds. All right, last agenda item, public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email arlicio at medford-ma.gov. Is there anyone who'd like to speak for three minutes on an issue of import to them? Ellen, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, three minutes. Hey, it's me again.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. And I do just want to note that, okay, I don't know. It, you know, we saw a video in Fitchburg when I was, something that I woke up to last week was a video here, someone on one of our streets. So, and just neighbors trying to talk to their other neighbors to see if they can figure out who this person was so they could try to tell this person's family. So it's here. I was really happy Wednesday morning, and another another morning last week I was feeling devastated and powerless and really wishing that, you know, some of the calls that this Council has made for more action at this local level would would be heeded and heard by our city government. So, yeah, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Kelly and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? Andy? Yes. All right. There's no one on Zoom, so we'll go to you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: months ago.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. All right. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak during public comment? Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by councillor everyone, councillors, councillor Lazzaro seconded by councillor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. No, it got to me at the same time. Councilor Callahan. I got Georgian.
[Zac Bears]: Six years ago, I ran for Medford City Council because I saw what decades of cuts to services and reactive decision-making had done to our city. Medford had become a city of no. A city that made it too hard to get the help you need at City Hall. A city that didn't have a plan for the future. A city suffering from the slow bleed of decades of budget cuts that left our streets crumbling and our schools without the resources students and teachers need to thrive. I want to live in a City of Yes, a Medford where we come together to accomplish big things and build a Medford for all of us. We've already made some progress. We said yes to a citywide comprehensive plan that will encourage real and transformative growth, build more housing that working families can afford, help protect our trees, and revitalize our business districts. We said yes to funding our schools, investing in our students and educators, and hiring more DPW staff to fix our streets by passing questions 7 and 8 last year. We said yes to establishing the Medford High School Building Committee, and I'm committed to securing state funding and bringing our community together to say yes to building a new Medford High School. This is just a start, and there's so much more to do. Part of becoming a city of yes means standing strong and making it clear that Medford is not for sale. We will make developers pay their fair share and provide community benefits. We will fight for a better deal with Tufts and work even harder to hold National Grid accountable to fixing our streets and gas leaks. We will fight back against Trump's threats to force our city to discriminate against our own neighbors and unlawfully snatch parents and children off the streets. We need to keep building a Medford for all of us. A Medford where we protect all of our neighbors from federal attacks on our basic human rights and build real community safety. A Medford where no matter your ability, you can walk, bike, or roll safely on our sidewalks and across our streets. A Medford with a real plan for growth and new revenue so we never have to rely on regular overrides to provide basic services and fix our streets. What we've accomplished and what we will achieve in the years ahead is only possible because of the commitment of so many residents to work together to make Medford an even better place to live. A city of yes. A Medford that is not for sale. A Medford for all of us. If I earn your vote for my fourth term, I guarantee that I will keep leading with compassion, making principled decisions, delivering results, and working to solve big problems together. I'm Zach Baers, and it's been the honor of my life to serve my hometown as your City Councilor. I ask for your support for my re-election and your vote on Tuesday, November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Test one, two. Medford City Council 19th regular meeting, October 28th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President beers present seven present none absent the meeting is called to order to drive to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25-166 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution in memory of Paul Matatal. Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved, sorry, be it resolved that the City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of Paul Matatal, retired Medford High School teacher, administrator, and coach. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to take a vote and then we'll take a moment of silence on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears yes something affirmative and the negative emotion passes please rise for a moment of silence.
[Zac Bears]: Records. The tabled records of the meeting of September 30th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the meeting of October 21st, 2025 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees 24036 and 24461 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, October 22, 2025. Report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Council is our to approve the committee report seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25162, petition for a common ventures license, Iris Restaurant. This is to certify that a common victual license is hereby granted to JNA Restaurant Corp, DBA, Iris Restaurant, location 432 Salem Street, Medford, Massachusetts. In said city of Medford, and that place only expires December 31st, 2026, unless sooner suspended or revoked for the violations of the law of the Commonwealth respecting the licensing of common victualers. This license is issued in conformity with the authority granted to the licensing authorities by Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 140, and amendments thereto by order of the Medford City Council. hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Do we have a representative from the business with us on Zoom or in person?
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has said that the user said, the business owner said that they would be on, but, and they confirmed by email, but they're not currently present. All right, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table, and we'll just get there. So motion to table, Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm affirmative, non-negative. The motion is tabled. Do we have a representative of Twisted Tree Cafe with us either in person or on Zoom? You can raise your hand on Zoom. Councilor Scapelli?
[Zac Bears]: No, we don't have anyone. That doesn't look like.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. On the motion to table by Councilor Scarapelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Oh, we have someone on here. Oh, there we go. All right. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, and you should be able to start your video. They're on now. All right. Well, we have Doherty here. I think that's Christine Doherty representing Twisted Tree Cafe. I'll turn it over to Councilor Sparapelle, and then we'll turn it over to the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, I want to thank Assistant Clerk Alicio for working hard to get our convictioners up on the CitizenServe platform. Now we are moving into the early 21st century with our permitting system here. It's been a long time coming. We've done a lot of work to try to do that. I want to give the petitioners here from Twisted Tree Cafe a chance to talk about their business and what their plans are. We're really excited to have you in our community. So go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Do we have any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by sorry seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative and the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations and good luck on your opening.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there a motion to take 25162 from the table? Great. A motion by Councilor Tseng to take paper 25162 from the table, seconded by Councilor Lemke. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative, then the negative. We will read 25162. This is the common vector license for Iris Restaurant. I see a representative here. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then I'll unmute the resident and the petitioner, and we can move from there.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, we have our representative from iris restaurant here. Welcome. If we get your name and address for the record and could you tell us about your business?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. We know Iris restaurant and congratulations on your new ownership.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from any members of the council? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations on the new ownership and best of luck.
[Zac Bears]: Have a good night.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Motions, orders and resolutions 25164 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. But if I just read the last paragraph. Okay, the whole thing you might just be resolved that the city council shall share a timeline to inform the residents of the area encompassing the Salem Street corridor of the process towards its ruling on the referred recommendations by the Community Development Board, and that the city council shall set a date certain for its vote to be rendered regarding the city Community Development Board supported upon recommendations and I, after receiving this agenda, forwarded the posting the advertisement to Councilor Scarpelli, and I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, advertised in a newspaper for 14 days.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor Scarpelli seconded by we have a one public comment. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. One second, Andy, here you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any other comment on this item, either in person or on Zoom? We'll go to Robert Carney on Zoom. Name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Andy, we'll come back to you. But we have also can grow on zoom. And I'm gonna request that you unmute. And then you'll have three minutes, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken yet who would like to speak on this issue? Seeing none, we'll go back to the podium to Andrew Castanedi for one minute.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli receiving place on file, is that fine? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to receive in place on file, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none negative. The motion is received and placed on file. Communications from the Mayor. Supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year 2026. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2026. $1,300,000 for the acquisition and implementation of an updated accounting software, including but not limited to funding for up to one full time temporary staff member to assist the city's transition. associated employee benefit costs, and third-party consulting and implementation services. To meet this appropriation, the sum of $1,300,000.00 be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2026 tax levy. The proposed supplemental appropriation utilizes one-time funds to support the transition to a new accounting software system. This initiative is the result of months of productive discussions and successful negotiations With the mystic Valley Development Commission related to the rivers edge project as the council was aware the properties at 100 and 200 rivers edge will no longer be exempt under Massachusetts general law chapter 59 for fiscal 26 with both properties now taxable. The resulting increase in the city's new growth will be sufficient to sustain this appropriation. As part of the ultimate MVDC negotiation, Medford has tentatively agreed to commit annual payments for the next five years, fiscal 26 to fiscal 30, ranging from $31,683 in fiscal 26 to $47,848 in fiscal 30, which would be deducted from the amount owed to Medford by the MVDC and redirected to Malden. This arrangement will require future City Council approval as it involves a payment not mandated by the district's enabling legislation, but it would simplify the process by eliminating the need for Medford to issue a separate payment. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lugo Kern, Mayor. And we have the Assessor and the Finance Director with us. So I'll give them a second to explain this to us a little bit more, and then we'll ask them any questions, and then we'll take it from there. So Thank you for being here, Jared and Bob.
[Zac Bears]: We might need you to move it up a little bit, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Jared, is there anything you want to add before we go to questions?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I just want to note that this was one of our budget priorities at the Council the last two years to move to fund a transition to a new system. So I'm glad to see some progress on this. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we have a motion to approve from Councilor Serapelli. Do we have, seconded by Councilor Townsend, do we have other questions? Almost thought you were out. I have questions and I always have questions on this stuff. It's been too long, Bob. We haven't had you before us in a few months. My questions are actually really easy. I just had one. Is this going to make it easier for us to take online payments eventually if we move to this digital payments?
[Zac Bears]: Certainly. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, that's a huge piece, I think, of the resident experience with City Hall, that we could make an improvement on online and digital payments would, I think, be a game changer for a lot of folks. My other question is, you know, you mentioned chart of accounts, and I know it needs to be cleaned up. You know, we had a bicycle commission donation at our last meeting last week, and they were like, you know, they've had some times in the past where they've had a donation and it's gone into a, you know, different thing in the chart of accounts. And just wondering, is this going to like make it easier for us to see on a more regular basis? where things like a donation, making sure that it goes to the right account, giving commissions the ability to see what their balances are more easily and take that workload off of your plate and the people in your office.
[Zac Bears]: Right now, you're going to the basement to figure that out.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Last two questions. At the end of an implementation period, I know something that, you know, I've really been focused on and I know a lot of residents would like to see is kind of a more interactive and available way to view the city budget and view the actual spending and things like that. Is that going to be part of this? Something that we could have a link to on our website where residents could kind of have a budget browser of some kind.
[Zac Bears]: That's only day to day.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That would be awesome. I think that would be something a lot of folks are looking for. Last thing is just the timeline. You know, I know, over the past couple years, we've talked, I can tell you've thought about it, because I've watched in stages, the implementation kind of idea, you put it together. And you mentioned year two, year three. So are we looking at about a three year implementation timeframe for this?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I mean, I think, you know, it's important. It's an important project, and I'm glad we're moving on it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, do we have any comment from members of the public on this paper? I see one. I will ask for your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you for your comment. The paper before us is a one-time appropriation of $1.3 million, which is on the tax levy because of the River's Edge, but I don't know, Jared, if you could talk a little bit more about maybe where the money came from, and then maybe, Bob, if you could talk about what this looks like going forward in some way.
[Zac Bears]: And this is the money that's in this year's levy, but we're not appropriating this money in future fiscal years to this project.
[Zac Bears]: I mean more to say that this $1.3 million that is being appropriated in fiscal 26, it's not like the $1.3 million in the next budget is going to this as well?
[Zac Bears]: And I know you might not have the exact figure in front of you, but you know, the resident was talking about some emergency, potential emergency needs and obviously some of the really worrying and dangerous things that are happening in the federal government. this wouldn't impact the stabilization fund or any funds that we would need that could be put towards.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And just, you know, I know that there's a lot of residents who are worried about the Trump administration not providing SNAP benefits starting November 1st, food stamps. and other items that are happening. The food security task force, I believe, is meeting tomorrow to bring together the city with some of the other agencies and folks who work on food security in the city to see, you know, figure out the mayor's team is putting that together. We didn't really receive any communication about it directly as a city council, but we have been made aware that they're meeting to put together an emergency response in some way. All right, do we have other comments on this? All right, we'll take you to the podium, name and address the record, you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you have any other public comments on this paper? Name and address for the record, please. Yes, quickly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I don't know if the assessor
[Zac Bears]: And when we say this year, last year, which are we talking calendar year?
[Zac Bears]: Fiscal year. So last year would be fiscal 25, and this year would be fiscal 26.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the comment. Any further public comments on this paper? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. The motion passes. Thanks, you guys. Public participation. We have general public participation on any topic that someone might want to discuss. You will have three minutes. We will have folks in person and on Zoom, and we will alternate between in-person and on Zoom. Please raise your hands on Zoom. We'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the comment. As I noted, super concerning. We're very worried about the impact that this retrenchment is going to have on residents. I am not sure what the city response will be out of tomorrow's meeting. I do know that the mystic community market is a resource on mystic Avenue. We have some mutual aid organizations in the city looking at direct rapid response, especially the Mutual Aid Bedford-Somerville folks. In terms of how is the city going to try to address certainly if this is a long-term issue with SNAP and then what seems to be a long-term issue on the health insurance premiums and the ACA markets, I do not know. I think, you know, even before the last 11 months or 10 months or feels like 10 years. municipalities were being asked to do too much things that should be done by the state and federal government. And now we're being asked to do even more. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, but it just means that our capacity is limited. For me as one Councilor, you know, we have advocated to state delegation, federal delegation for them to respond to what's happening at the federal level. I think in some ways, it's a hard situation because the clearly like the Trump administration doesn't listen to Massachusetts as federal elected officials. But we definitely need to have a response. Something I have been advocating for in an individual capacity is the corporate fair share law, which is at the state level, which would kind of backfill some of the funding cuts that we're seeing at the state level. So that's just some things that I have been looking at, and I hope that the city can kind of pretty soon after whatever meeting is happening tomorrow, point people, people who wanna help, people who wanna support in the direction of either city resources or private nonprofit resources in our community to make sure that people have food next week. And I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, who I know is pretty in tune with a lot of the organizations who work on this.
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure. I don't know when it's happening. I don't know who's attending. I just know that there's some sort of meeting because somebody emailed someone who told me that. Yeah. All right. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment on anything? Yes. Well, you have two minutes left. All right. You have two minutes left on your timer.
[Zac Bears]: This is in general, so we're already in the general public participation. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Andy, it's.
[Zac Bears]: I did give it to the mayor, yes.
[Zac Bears]: I have actually asked her about it, but the money's with them.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in the public comment section of our agenda? Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Hope it's zoning.
[Zac Bears]: Not zoning. Yeah, I think we've seen civilian review or community review board for police in several communities here in Massachusetts and in other communities. Really having residents directly involved in reviewing police policies and practices is an important thing. We have been, I think, really lucky here in Medford to have had some leadership in our police department that has done some good work on updating policies and building a culture and addressing some past problems in policing. I don't have to talk about the Memorial Day bank heist or anything like that back in the 80s. We're a long, long way from that culturally. But I think that connection is really important, having residents directly involved. so that they understand what our police policies and practices are and that they have a role in making them. So I definitely support creating a civilian review board for that purpose.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Well, I am the sponsor and I've led the effort on this ordinance. It is been crafted over the last 10 months or so. I've met with the city treasurer. I've met with the chair of the board of trust fund commissioners, met with the chief of staff, met with many people on this ordinance to craft a policy that really fits our city's values, that makes sure that we're investing our public funds intelligently and not into Industries of destruction and violence. I don't think that's something anyone wants here in our city When we've looked at it, you know We have gotten legal review from KP Law. We've gotten legal opinions from a number of sources. We've had a lot of meetings that have incorporated the legal comments from city legal advisors. And it's pretty clear that this is an eminently enforceable and clear policy. There are not many city funds that are actually right now invested in oil companies, weapons manufacturers, people who are making profits from private prisons, companies that are committing human rights violations across the world. We've actually, in the ordinance, included a condition, a set of conditions from Morgan Stanley. So if we think this is some radical thing, Morgan Stanley's conditions are the ones that we're using. That's a Wall Street investment firm. Because even on Wall Street, they know that our money should not be put into these companies that are committing violence. And that it's actually not a good return for residents. The ordinance includes a fiduciary responsibility following all of the relevant state laws. And in my conversations with the city treasurer, this is easy to enforce. I don't appreciate the veto and I think we'll work through it collaboratively as I've worked through collaboratively with the mayor on many issues. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I know I'm a city councilor who invites strong opinions. Lots of people love me. Lots of people don't. Tonight, I want to speak to everyone else. People who've never supported me, but are thinking about it. People who used to support me, but aren't sure if they do anymore. Or people who are just getting to know me for the first time. I love Medford. I grew up here, and I can't imagine living anywhere else. I first ran for office because I'm committed to making our city, my hometown, a better place. A Medford where people, whether they're 22 or 82, aren't worried they'll get pushed out of their homes because Medford's not affordable anymore. A city of yes, where we come together and get big things done. A Medford that is not for sale, where we have a head seat at the negotiating table and we make sure that developers, Tufts, or the MBTA pay their fair share. A Medford for all of us, where we stand up for our inclusive values and protect our neighbors. The Facebook bullies have tried to paint a pretty nasty picture of me, but I ask you to ignore the noise and talk to people who actually know me. I've sat down with hundreds of people who don't agree with me, whether that's about the city budget, or zoning, or street safety. We've had good conversations, we've learned from each other, and I've made better decisions because of it. I don't pretend that I have all the answers, and I admit when I'm wrong. That's who I am, and it's the kind of leadership I want to see in my own representatives. Whether you vote for me or not, I will continue to listen, learn, and lead with compassion. I work hard every single day for our city, and win or lose, I'll keep working to help make the best choices we can for Medford's future, because I love living here. I'm Zach Baers, I'm running for re-election to the Medford City Council, and I hope I can earn your support and your vote on November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 18th regular meeting, Medford City Council, October 21st, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Pierce. present, seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meetings of October 7, 2025 were passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees. 25138 and 25139, offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, October 8th, 2025. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to approve the report? On the motion to approve the committee report by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor, 25105, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Amended values aligned local investments ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to the table by Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 25.155 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, authorization of a five-year contract with Adam Matthew LTD, DBA AM Quartex for digitization of the library's local history collections. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respect the request and recommend that the City Council approves the following five-year contract with Adam Matthew LTD, DBA AM Cortex. As the Council is aware, Mass General Law Chapter 30B, Section 12 requires City Council approval for a contract that exceeds three years. agreement authorized the city and the library to enter into a five-year agreement under the Bloomberg Digital Innovation Grant to support the digitization of the library's local history collections. This initiative requires two specialized vendors, one to handle document scanning and another to develop and maintain a digital web platform to host the digitized materials. This contract pertains specifically to the vendor responsible for the creation and ongoing support of the digital platform. Given the complexity and long-term nature of this project, a five-year service plan is essential While the platform will undergo an initial build, content will be added on a continuous basis well beyond the initial term. Local history materials are inherently complex. Unlike standard print materials, they include audio-visual content and oral history recordings that require specialized support for proper integration and presentation. This platform will serve as a vital and evolving community resource. Ensuring a longer-term vendor support is critical to maintaining the platform's functionality, accessibility, and growth over time. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. It looks like we have the library director, Barbara Kerr, with us. If you want to share more, Barbara, and then I have questions from a couple of Councilors, but I'll recognize you, Barbara.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guarantee you there's boxes in this building that people would be happy to give to the library.
[Zac Bears]: I'll miss the microfilm machine myself.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to keep it?
[Zac Bears]: Cool. It's fun. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. I just have a couple questions. Yes. Will eventually library staff be trained to manage the database, the repository at some point?
[Zac Bears]: And so is it going to live on the library website, or will it be like a link to some other?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just want to make sure we retain the long-term ownership. I mean, we're going to keep the physical files, right?
[Zac Bears]: OK. There'll be drives as well. OK, great. Awesome. On the motion to approve all those in favor. Opposed motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: 25156 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, donation acceptance, Beacon Bank for Medford Bicycle Advisory Commission, bicycle safety equipment. I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approves under Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 by Beacon Bank to the Bicycle Advisory Commission to help pay for bicycle safety equipment. A member of the Bicycle Advisory Commission plans to attend to address the council. Come on up. How you doing?
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you. It often is. So this is to accept a donation from Beacon Bank for $500?
[Zac Bears]: Well, that really shouldn't be as complicated as it is.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Well, this piece of it is that the state law requires that we approve all donations to the city, which I think we are more than happy to do. But I think it has also advised us that I think continuing ongoing problems of why, you know, there's a line item for the Bicycle Commission. That means there's an account in the system for the Bicycle Commission. They should just put this in there. That would make things much easier, wouldn't it?
[Zac Bears]: There is a line item, doesn't mean there's a bank account, but there's an account within the city's chart of accounts for you guys, because we see it every year. So it shouldn't be that hard to use that number when they deposit these funds. So would anybody be open to putting an amendment on this paper to just request confirmation that this donation was placed into the Bicycle Commission's proper account? Councilor Tseng moved to amend, seconded by Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve as amended by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. And the amendment is to get confirmation that this gets deposited into the Bicycle Commission account. Great. All those in favor? Opposed? Well, it's general law. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none on the negative, the motion passes. Probably we should. Could you motion to reconsider? There's a motion to reconsider paper 25155 by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. And now someone. The motion to approve 25155 by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think affirmative. No, the negative. The motion passes to 5157 submitted by Mayor Brandling occurred Community Preservation Committee appropriation request you you church historic window preservation. Dear President Bears and city councilors on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. Requesting the appropriation of 9,000 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Unitarian Universalist Church of Medford to fund the East Window Preservation Project. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPA manager, Teresa DuPont, will be in attendance to address the council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Brianna Leopard. And I will recognize you, Teresa.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. I'm not seeing solicitor Foley and we need him for the next one. Can we take Councilor Scarpelli's under suspension resolution? Take that as a motion from Councilor Scarpelli on 25161. I can't find my copy. There it is. Motion to take paper 25161 from the table by Councilor Sperpelli under suspension. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25161. Whereas the voters of Bedford will vote yes or no on a ballot question on November 4th, 2025 regarding a new charter for the city, whereas the proposed charter was formulated by an 11 member resident committee after extensive review process with public engagement research interviews with city officials and guidance from the Collins Center for public management, whereas the charter was then reviewed by the city council mayor, state legislature and signed by the governor. And whereas the ballot question is the final step in implementation of Medford's proposed charter, be it resolved that Medford City Council inform voters of Medford about said ballot question, how to find the text of the ballot question, and where to read the proposed charter. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to request that the mayor do a robocall and other means to get information out about the charter ballot. Website, robocall. Got it. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I think we have solicitor Foley with us. 25158, submitted by Mayor Brannon O'Kern. Approval of funding for law department claim over $2,500, safety insurance company for $3,000. Law Department file 25-5, date of accident, July 2nd, 2024. Date of settlement, September 25th, 2025. Amount of request, $3,000. Going to the claimant name, Safety Insurance Company, ASO Angelo Fiorentino v. City of Medford. The claimant, Safety, a subrogee of Angelo Fiorentino, initially sought reimbursement of damages of $5,341.19 paid to its insured Angelo Fiorentino for damages to a motor vehicle as a result of an incident involving a Department of Public Works vehicle at the intersection of Bradbury Avenue and 3rd Street, Medford, MA on or about July 2, 2024. City DPW confirmed the accident and the liability of the Medford DPW. Safety has agreed to accept 3,000 total to resolve the claim. The necessary lease will be obtained from safety. And I will recognize the city solicitor should be able to turn on your video, Kevin, and I'll ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you. Hi, Solicitor Foley, good to hear from you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, solicitor. Do we have any questions for the city solicitor? Seeing, oh, go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thank you, Solicitor Foley.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we have public participation. We have a petition from Andrew Castagnetti to the Honorable City Council. The undersigned respectively pray for stopping geographical discrimination in East Medford, Massachusetts. Petitioner name, Andrew Castagnetti, October 16th, 2025. And I will recognize Mr. Castagnetti. at the podium for three minutes. All right, Andrew Castagnetti, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: No, you're over, but- Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Zac Bears]: This is for the 93 Sound Barrier on the east side? Yeah, I'll sign it.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have anyone else in the chamber or on Zoom who'd like to speak for public participation? All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. And then I think there's someone who's having an issue on Zoom. I'll take them next. Time is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins made a motion to table. You're eating into your time.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that the mayor has 10 days to consider, but that there's not a time limit under general law for considering the response.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to recognize on Zoom, Steve Schnapp. Steve, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Steve. I will go back to the podium, then we'll come back to Zoom. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So the PIA issue, you've got like 20 seconds. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So that is simply wrong. We'll take you back at the end, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the podium. Go to Robert Carney on Zoom. Robert, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who wants to speak in public participation? That's a yes. All right, we've got someone for the podium. Seeing no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're over time. Thank you. We have one hand on Zoom. Go to Ken on Zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have one more hand on Zoom. We have Munir. I'll recognize you, Munir, for three minutes. Just requested you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, is there anyone else who hasn't spoken yet in public participation who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'll recognize anyone who spoke already for one more minute. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any other comments for tonight's meeting of the public participation? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, is there a motion on the floor? Motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Six years ago, I ran for Medford City Council because I saw what decades of cuts to services and reactive decision-making had done to our city. Medford had become a city of no. A city that made it too hard to get the help you need at City Hall. A city that didn't have a plan for the future. A city suffering from the slow bleed of decades of budget cuts that left our streets crumbling and our schools without the resources students and teachers need to thrive. I want to live in a city of yes. A Medford where we come together to accomplish big things and build a Medford for all of us. We've already made some progress. We said yes to a citywide comprehensive plan that will encourage real and transformative growth, build more housing that working families can afford, help protect our trees, and revitalize our business districts. We said yes to funding our schools, investing in our students and educators, and hiring more DPW staff to fix our streets by passing questions 7 and 8 last year. We said yes to establishing the Medford High School Building Committee, and I'm committed to securing state funding and bringing our community together to say yes to building a new Medford High School. This is just a start, and there's so much more to do. Part of becoming a city of yes means standing strong and making it clear that Medford is not for sale. We will make developers pay their fair share and provide community benefits. We will fight for a better deal with Tufts and work even harder to hold National Grid accountable to fixing our streets and gas leaks. We will fight back against Trump's threats to force our city to discriminate against our own neighbors and unlawfully snatch parents and children off the streets. We need to keep building a Medford for all of us. A Medford where we protect all of our neighbors from federal attacks on our basic human rights and build real community safety. A Medford where no matter your ability, you can walk, bike, or roll safely on our sidewalks and across our streets. A Medford with a real plan for growth and new revenue so we never have to rely on regular overrides to provide basic services and fix our streets. What we've accomplished and what we will achieve in the years ahead is only possible because of the commitment of so many residents to work together to make Medford an even better place to live. A city of yes. A Medford that is not for sale. A Medford for all of us. If I earn your vote for my fourth term, I guarantee that I will keep leading with compassion, making principled decisions, delivering results, and working to solve big problems together. I'm Zach Baers and it's been the honor of my life to serve my hometown as your City Councilor. I ask for your support for my re-election and your vote on Tuesday, November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The tabled records of the meeting of September 9th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. The records of the meeting of September 30th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to table, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Acknowledgement of review of continued nondisclosure of City Council Executive Session Minutes dated August 19, 2025 under the Open Meeting Law. acknowledging that we are, um, not disclosing the minutes of the executive session of the City Council dated August 19th 2025 because they're still exempt from disclosure under provisions of the open meeting law. Reports of committees 24 073 and 24 354 offered by Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25149, resolution to establish a recruitment and hiring process for the city clerk. We discussed this last week and I do have an update from the solicitor. Give me one second here. All right, so I went back and forth a little bit with Solicitor Foley on these questions that the council had about the process. I know folks were talking about wanting to see if we could all do a dupli-mary screening and how that would affect executive session. I'll just read, basically I think there's two options. One is three members could meet in a preliminary screening committee, which is something that is specifically spoken about in the open meeting law. And that group could, it's not a quorum of the body, that group could decide to go into executive session to screen applicants for an open meeting. for basically four interviews. The other thing that we could do is all members could look at the resumes and recommend whoever they want to be interviewed, and then that could move forward. You know, all of those people would move to the interview stages, and then Councilors who want to be involved in those interviews, one or two in each of the rounds could be part of the interviews, and then In either direction, we would receive three finalists who would then be coming before us in a public session and being, we would pick from the three finalists. I can read a little bit more or I could go to, I'll just read a little bit more. This is from the solicitor. The AG's Division of Open Government issued a determination on this issue and held as follows. A public body may create a preliminary screening committee to interview applicants for employment or appointment under General Law Chapter 30A, Section 1821A.8. That preliminary screening committee may meet in executive session under Purpose 8 to, quote, consider or interview applicants for employment or appointment if the chair declares that an open meeting will have a detrimental effect in obtaining qualified applicants Provided, however, that this clause shall not apply to any meeting, including meetings of a preliminary screening committee, to consider and interview applicants who have passed a prior preliminary screening. And a preliminary screening is defined as, quote, the initial stage of screening applicants conducted by a committee or subcommittee of a public body solely for the purpose of providing to the public body a list of those applicants qualified for further consideration or interview. And it says that a preliminary screening committee must consist of fewer than a quorum of the members of the parent body. And it may include additional members who are not members of the parent body. And then you have to keep minutes. Is there anything else in here? Solicitor fully said, in my opinion, less than a quorum of the city council members could serve on a preliminary screening committee, review the applications and resumes and assist in deciding who warrants an interview in round one. So I'll stop there. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And if you could talk for a bit, I'm trying to write this up.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, my interpretation was maybe we would take a vote tonight to designate three people who would then participate in those rounds. Does that sound right? All right.
[Zac Bears]: No, you didn't. Anyone else have any thoughts here? All right, give me one second then. My apologies to everybody. Sorry, I just want to make sure I get this right. Does anyone want to potentially put their name in as a designee? We can talk about that a little bit. Is anyone interested? I'll recognize you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Anyone else interested in being a designee here. I'm happy to do one as well. Oh, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and I'm seeing no objections from Councilors saying Scarpelli or Leming as to wanting to be one of the designees. Right. So Council is our has nominated herself. Councilor Callahan, and then I can do it or you can do a kid whatever you prefer. I can do it. Okay. All right, I will represent men as best as I can on this committee. No guarantees, guys. All right, so what I have here is, An update to section three interview process. So it would now read all applications will be sent to city Councilors for review and Councilors will submit the names of candidates they want to see interviewed to the director of HR to submit for the HR coordinator for scheduling of interviews. The city council will appoint three designees to participate in the interview process. All names of candidates selected for interview will be kept confidential. Initial interviews are conducted by city staff and city council designees. Specific questions and or scenario questions will be developed by the Director of HR and DEI Director for approval by the Council designees. All candidates for interviews will be asked the same standard questions. The DEI Director will formulate basically a rubric with the questions prior to interviews. Calendar invitation will be sent to all interviewers, which will include a copy of the rubric, questions, and the applications. Following the interview process, all documentation will be collected and kept on file by HR. the HR coordinator will contact candidates selected for a second interview and schedule time for the second interview. The second interviews will be conducted by, again, city staff and the city council designees. Specific questions prior to the second interview will be developed for approval in the same manner as the first process. So essentially if there are, like if we want to do, solve this problem type question. And then, the top ranking three candidates will be submitted to the City Council for action. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we can this way. I think like we could decide if One of us wants to be in the first round, two of us in the second round, or whatever combination of that we want to.
[Zac Bears]: In the first, in these, yeah, exactly. Because if we do more than that, then they're, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do we have other questions, thoughts? All right, is there a motion to adopt the amended process for the interviews? On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. And is there a motion to approve the main paper on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Just gonna call the roll on this one. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is approving the whole thing as amended. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative the motion passes. 25152 offered by Council is our encounter limiting resolution to increase pedestrian safety at Boston Avenue and high street me one second here. Whereas the city council received a letter dated September 28 2025 from Victoria burrows key age 10 that highlighted dangerous conditions for pedestrians at the intersection of Boston Avenue and high street and West Medford. Now therefore be it resolved that the Metro City Council request an update on the payment marking plan for the high street corridor. from Boston Avenue to the West Medford High Street Rotary and any other potential traffic calming and safety measures available to increase the safety of pedestrians. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite Traffic and Transportation Director Todd Blake to present said update. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilors are on the motion to refer to Public Works and Facilities Committee seconded by saying my company any further discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor. Opposed to motion passes communications from city officers and employees. We have to 5153 submitted by the Elections Commission Medford call for election November 2025. call for election. General Municipal Tuesday, November 4th 2025. We had ordered that the Elections Commission be and it's hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such of the inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at our general municipal election on Tuesday, November 4th 2025 to assemble at their polling places and their respective boards and precincts and then to give their votes for Mayor City Council School Committee. Question one. And the polls have said General Municipal Election shall open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. We have further ordered that the following name polling places be, and they are hereby designated for the use at the General Municipal Election on November 4th, 2025. Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School, 3000 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club, 340 Salem Street. Ward 2, Precinct 1, and Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School, 35 Court Street. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Medford American Legion, 321 Winthrop Street. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom, 475 Winthrop Street. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University Gantcher Center Rear, 161 College Ave. Ward 4, Precinct 2, 22 Walkling Court, Auburn and North Street, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5, Precinct 1 and Ward 5, Precinct 2, Mississippuck Elementary School, 37 Hicks Ave. Ward 6, Precinct 1, West Medford Fire Station, 26 Harvard Ave. Ward 6, Ward 6, Precinct 2, Brooks Elementary School, 388 High Street. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers, North Building Entrance. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn K-3-8 Public School, 3004 Mystic Valley Parkway. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Senior Center, 101 Riverside Avenue. Ward 8, Precinct 2, South Medford Fire Station, 0 Medford Street. In-person early voting for the November general municipal election will be at City Hall, mainly during business hours, but also on the weekends. Saturday, October 25th, 8.30am to 2.30pm. Sunday, October 26th, 8.30am to 2.30pm. Monday, October 27th, 8.30am to 4.30pm. Tuesday, October 28th, 8.30am to 4.30pm. Wednesday, October 29th, 8.30am to 7.30pm. Thursday, October 30th, 8.30am to 4.30pm. Friday, October 31st, 8.30am to 12.30pm. So that's Saturday and Sunday, October 25th and 26th, and the week of October 27th to October 31st during City Hall hours. I think that's it for now, so I'll recognize Jim.
[Zac Bears]: Great, do we have any questions? We do, I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Sagan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any further questions about the call for election? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. After the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 25-154, submitted by the Elections Commission, Medford Election Warrant, November 2025. This is functionally the exact same information, but per the law, we need to vote to approve this, and then we all need to sign it. And I think I have the copy here for us to sign. With a pen. Yes. But I'm guessing that with this folder that says election warrant, that's probably what it is. I'll just quickly summarize. Warrant for Medford November 2025 general municipal election. Greetings, in the name of the Commonwealth, you are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said city or town who are qualified to vote in elections to vote at the various wards and precincts on Tuesday, the fourth day of November, 2025, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the following purpose, to cast their votes in the general municipal election for the candidates of the following offices, offices, mayor, city council, school committee, and question one, as thereon at the time and place of said voting given under our hands this day, seventh day of October, 2025, the Medford City Council. We'll all sign it and then post it at each polling location in the library and City Hall no later than October 24th, 2025. Any further discussion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, here we go. We'll pass this around and then we can get a tip. Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email rolicio at medford-ma.gov. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who would like to participate? All right, we'll start at the podium. I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom. Give me one second here.
[Zac Bears]: All right, seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. I think I'm gonna address the record and you'll have about three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't had a vote to change the rules. You know, we do meet every week, we meet in committees on a weekly basis and we have regular meetings every two weeks. We are having back to back meetings because we rescheduled our September 23rd meeting because it was Rosh Hashanah. And we have again, at the end of the month, back to back meetings also because of a holiday rescheduling.
[Zac Bears]: I can't speak for anyone else, but Councilors could put on a request to change the rules if they wanted to go back or change to a regular weekly meeting. But I will just note, we've met more since the shift to the committee structure, and those meetings tend to be shorter, focused on one or two topics. They are happening. every week we're meeting, you know, at least the first 18 months of this term, we were meeting, you know, three or four times a week, you know, two to four times a week. We had more meetings this term than we did in the previous term. So it's not that we aren't meeting weekly. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I see Ellen on Zoom. Ellen, one second, I'll unmute you. You should be able to start your video when I unmute you if you want, and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, Ellen, we can't hear you, give me one second.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, happy to tell you. There are a few reasons that a council can go into executive session under the open meeting law. One is to discuss reputation, character, physical condition, or mental health of an individual, or to discuss discipline dismissal. That's the first one, that section. This is Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A. The next one is to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with non-union personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations. The third one is to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have detrimental effect on bargaining or litigating position. The fourth is to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect thereto. The fifth is to investigate charges of criminal misconduct or to consider the filing of criminal complaints. Six is to consider the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property if the chair declares that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body. Seven is to comply with or act under the authority of any general or special law or federal grant and aid requirements. Eight is to consider interview applicants for employment or appointment by a preliminary screening committee, if the chair declares that an open meeting will have detrimental effect in obtaining qualified applicants. provided that this will not apply to any meeting, including meetings of a preliminary screening committee to consider and interview advocates who have passed a prior preliminary screening. That's the one we were talking about earlier. And then the last one is to meet or confer with a mediator as defined in section 21, 23C of chapter 233, with respect to litigation or decision on any public business within its jurisdictions involving another party group or entity. Well, there's one more, sorry. Ten is to discuss trade secrets or confidential competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of activities conducted by a governmental body as an energy supplier under a license granted by the Department of Public Utilities. So that wouldn't be us, but actually it might be. That's a long paragraph. It might apply when a municipal aggregator determines that such disclosure will adversely affect its ability to conduct business. We do municipal energy aggregation. So potentially, if we ever had to meet to discuss a new energy aggregation contract, but those are the 10 exemptions. And then there are some other, I've timed myself off. There are some other requirements. We have to convene in an open session. Majority of members have to vote to go into executive session with a roll call vote. And the chair has to state which of those 10 reasons the body is entering executive session.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you have to state which of the purposes, but not like the specifics. So you have to say we're entering it under purpose six to discuss purchase, exchange, lease, and value of real property. But we don't have to say it's for this property for this reason.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to participate in public participation? Seeing one in the chamber. We'll go to the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Like, where are you seeing the link? Or like, what did you click to get to that screen on your screen?
[Zac Bears]: They did, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there's at least, there's been like seven or eight tonight.
[Zac Bears]: I think it is 479095. It's at the end of the call-in number.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so yeah, so the six numbers before the pound sign.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All right. And yeah, we'll see if we can update that. If you go to our agenda website, the MedfordMA.CivicClerk, and I think if you go to the city events calendar, when you click the link, the password is already a part of it. If you're entering just, if you're typing in this URL, then it might need another passcode. So I'll double check on that, but I think it might be an issue of how the link is getting posted.
[Zac Bears]: You got it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to restart your time because we're talking about pass codes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who would like to speak during public participation? Seeing none, I'm gonna close public participation. Are there any motions on the floor? The motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 16th regular meeting September 30 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of August 5th were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records? On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. The special records of the special meeting of August 19th, 2025 are passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Councilor Tseng to approve. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Records of the meeting of September 9th were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, I do find those records.
[Zac Bears]: That's usually for committee meetings, not for regular meetings for the verbatim transcript.
[Zac Bears]: Do you want to table them?
[Zac Bears]: OK. On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. That is tabled until the next regular meeting. 25126 petition for a common pictures license T bar nails and lashes to we have T bar nails and lashes here tonight. Great. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll come to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli. Do we have any questions from any other members of the council? Seeing none on the motion to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, then the negative emotion passes. Congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: Good luck.
[Zac Bears]: motions orders. You're good. You're good. motions orders and resolutions. 25127, just a reminder, 61 Locust Street, that's where you can find the T-bar and nails. Motions, orders and resolutions, 25147 offered by Councilor Leming and President Bears. Whereas workers at Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center are the lowest paid workers in 1199 SEIU with the average CNA making only $17 per hour with employees with more than 35 years of experience in the facility making no more than 2289 per hour. And whereas the housekeeping and dietary department makes only 1637 per hour with no pay scale, and where bargaining has been going ongoing since June with the workers fighting for adequate pay raises. Whereas Medford rehab and nursing has listed over 64 CNAs who have been hired. and then left into under one year. And whereas a significant portion of the workers are Haitian refugees working under TPS who send what little they can back to their struggling families in Haiti, leaving even less for themselves. And whereas the workers at Medford Rehab and Nursing Center are holding a picket on Thursday, October 2nd, from two to 4 p.m. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we stand with the union workers at Medford Rehab and Nursing Center and offer our full support to their efforts to win a fair contract with strong compensation and benefits for the essential work that they do. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, any further discussion, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25148 offered by Councilor Leming, whereas the city of Medford entered into a new waste removal contract last year, and whereas this new contract created a policy that condominium complexes over a certain size would not receive city-provided waste removal services, and whereas certain townhouse condominium complexes in Medford are more similar to homes with fewer than four units and large residential buildings. Now therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request an update from the city administration regarding the waste removal contract, and the possibility of continuing city provided waste removal services for residential condominium properties that are laid out as townhouses. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Let me go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We have some residents here, I believe, who want to speak on this issue around trash removal. I have a hand on Zoom. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Great. If you're in the room, you can line up behind the podium. The Zoom hand was up first, so I will take Robert Carney on Zoom. Give me one second. Robert, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Robert, your time has expired, but we'll come back to you after we've heard from the other residents for another minute, if that's okay. Thank you. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak on this matter? Robert, do you want to speak again? Are you going to put your hand down? Yes, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, appreciate your comment. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, do we have any further comments from the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Commissioner McGivern, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Council Member Ayuda as well.
[Zac Bears]: Recognize Commissioner McGovern, Commissioner McGovern.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilors Caraviello, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Mr. McIvern, your hand is still up as well.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'll go to Council I mean then Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan Councilor let me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do see one person who'd like to speak, who hasn't spoken yet. And Robert, I do see your hand on Zoom, but every resident has three minutes and then one minute of follow-up. So you've already spoken on this issue. You can speak again during the public participation section of the meeting for another three minutes. And I do see a hand for someone who hasn't spoken yet. So we'll start at the podium, then we'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. One second, yes, Joan. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Emily Schwartz, name and address for the record of three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Excuse me? I think it's any building over four units.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, name and address record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to approve and request the update from the administration. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven affirmative no negative the motion passes to 5149 offered by President Bears resolution to establish recruitment hiring process to the city clerk. Whereas City Clerk Curtabese has informed the City Council that he will resign his position as City Clerk effective December 31st, 2025. And whereas the City Council thanks Clerk Curtabese for his years of dedicated service to the residents of the City of Medford and to the City Council. And whereas the City Council President has worked with the City Solicitor and Director of Human Resources to outline a recruitment and hiring process for the appointment of a City Clerk for the City of Medford. Now therefore be it resolved by the City, Medford City Council that we adopt the following process for recruitment and hiring of a City Clerk. Step one, human resources requisition form. A job description will be created for review and approval of the city council. We have a job description attached tonight and a vote on it. If we vote on this thing, on this item. Step two, advertisement of position. The position will be posted for at least two weeks. interview process. City Council President and Director of HR will review all applications, finalize a list of candidates to interview who meet minimum requirements. Interviews will be scheduled. Initial interviews will be conducted by the Chief of Staff, Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Elections Manager, and a City Council designee. Candidates will be asked the same standard questions. There will be a second interview, which would also include a city council designate the building commissioner and the city solicitor along with the director of HR. Once that process is complete, there would be rankings. The top ranking three candidates will be notified of their selection. And after a reference check, their names would be made public and submitted to the city council for action. So once the city council, once the final candidates are selected, HR will schedule final interviews. The city council, before the city council, and then the city council would appoint one of those candidates by a majority vote. So that is the process that has been outlined. There are two city council designees for the two sets of interviews. And I am wondering what folks think on the council if they want to designate folks here, if they want me to designate them after we approve this resolution. But other than that, I think the documents in our agenda are relatively self-explanatory. And with that, I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I'll recognize Councilor Lazzaro, and then I recognize the HR Director, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Are they substantive or just?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah, I think you can just email that along.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, you can email this to Lisa Crowley on the job description. Yeah, I'll recognize Councilor Callahan in just a second, but to Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Scarpelli's point, the question was like confidentiality in some way. If we are meeting, and I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a motion to amend this, but the initial thinking talking to HR and the city solicitor was that if somebody has to have their name made public to apply for the position that would reduce the pool of people who may be willing to apply for the position. That was the initial thought. Just saying where we're coming from. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I can come back to you or I can go to Lisa Crowley and solicitor Foley.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to be clear like I did advocate that all the Councilors would be able to review the initial applications. And this is what the solicitor and HR director said so just wanted to state that I'm going to recognize the HR director and the city solicitor. I'll go to the HR director first. There's a couple of items. It looks like there's some amendments that Councilor Callahan would like to make to the job description. A couple of typos that Councilor Lazzaro would like to correct. And then the main question from Councilor Scarpelli, which is how can we amend the process so that councilors can review the initial applications and then move them into the interview process? So go ahead, Lisa.
[Zac Bears]: The final three would be so that right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan just to clarify Councilor Scarpelli, what you're saying is you'd like for the Councilors to receive all the applications. And then once that has closed to meet an executive session to decide who should move to the interview process.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: back to the HR director and then also the solicitor if you'd like to chime in. It sounds like the request is that the council review all of the applications and then meet in executive session and decide who to move to the interview stage. And then also there's a request that the interviews be recorded so Councilors could view them. Lisa, Kevin, what are the thoughts there?
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor Foley, could you comment on the executive session for review of the initial applications and then also the issue of recording interviews?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Solicitor. Councilor Scarapelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, from my perspective, we table it until next week, we get an answer on the executive session, I don't think it's a huge delay. We can also authorize the posting of the position as amended, and then come back next week and make a decision after we know about the executive session piece. I also think, hey, I'm just saying I don't, I don't mind not having to do it all. So, you know, that's, that's a piece of, there's a lot of behind the scenes work of being the president of the city council and this adding on to that. I certainly don't mind having the burden shared with my colleagues. And, you know, if we find that the executive session piece of things is an issue, I think we can also maybe come up with an alternative approach. And I'm just directing this to Councilor Scarpelli of perhaps, you know, if the executive session is an issue that all our resumes would go out to everybody and anyone that any councilor wanted to see interviewed, I would make a recommendation that they be interviewed. That could be an alternative. I personally would prefer that we sit down and, you know, I want to list, the body seems to be very clear that they'd like to have a meeting to say here we've looked at the people, here's what we want to put forward. If that is a legal issue, that would be my proposed alternative. So just want to say that I'm hearing what you're saying. And I feel, I feel fine about the approach. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. So I think it's a B paper that we authorize the HR director to post the job description with the amendments from Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro. Just writing it down. Giving Rich time to write it down too. So authorizing the posting of the job description as amended by Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, if you could forward, you can make an email maybe with me, Lisa Crowley and Anna and send your typos and you can send your amendments and then Then Lisa can send back an edited document, and we can all make sure. Yeah, I'm saying let's do it this way instead. Let's just go through Lisa directly, if that's OK, whoever wants to do it. You already sent it to Lisa and me. All right, then Anna, you send it to Lisa. You send it to Lisa and me, and then Lisa, you can take them and send us back an updated version. That's fine. I don't, you know, I'm not reading my emails during this meeting. All right. So that's the B paper. I want to recognize Kevin and Lisa one more time. Does that sound, I'll go to Kevin and then Lisa. Kevin, does that sound good? Do you think you can by next week, let us know about the executive session purpose?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Lisa, on the job description posting, does this sound if with the amendments from Councilor Callahan and Lazzaro, go ahead and post the description, and then we'll make a decision next week on that last piece of the process?
[Zac Bears]: Not a problem. Thank you very much. And also just one thing I wanted to state beforehand. Anna, you know, especially you or George, In terms of the designee for the interview stage, I wasn't thinking that would necessarily be me. So if you feel like you want to be present instead of the ability to record, I think we should just, you know, if anyone wants to be part of those interviews, let me know. If more people want to be part of it than one in each interview phase, then we'll figure it out.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So we'll do the B paper and then we'll table the main paper for one week. All right. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Oh, you're good with that. I'm good with that. All right. All right. On the, on the B paper first, which is to authorize the HR director to post a job description with the amendments from Councilors are on Councilor Callahan, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm affirmative, none the negative. And that was to note Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Tseng. And then on the motion of the table for one week by Councilor Scarpelli, the main paper seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Okay. Thank you. There's a quick executive session. Do we want to take that?
[Zac Bears]: Solicitor Foley is here, but...
[Zac Bears]: 25151 Salem Street.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, let's do public participation. Yeah. And then that, okay. Okay, thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scott Felder to take public participation in paper 25151, suspend the rolls to take them, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative. None negative. The motion passes with public participation. The first is we did receive a petition from Sharon Diesso on August 25th. I'm going to take Sharon and then we'll take you for public participation. We've taken votes on them, but we'll take you during public participation. Sharon, do you want to describe your public comment or do you want me to read your petition? Okay. Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is this public participation? Can we just take it at the end? Anyone else would like to speak in public participation? I see Gaston. Is there anyone else? I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom. We'll go to Gaston. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I have a hand on Zoom, so I'm going to go to Zoom, then I'll come back. I'll go to Ren on Zoom. Ren, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to the podium name dress record, you'll have three minutes and we have one more hand on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to GABA's iPhone on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Marianne? Thanks for coming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in general public participation? Sharon, we'll take you for one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So anyone else would like to speak in general public participation. We have one person on zoom Caitlin. Name and address record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in the public participation portion of the meeting? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in the room standing for it, we'll move on to 25151. Proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance, change to the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District for referral to the Community Development Board. This is a procedural vote. The Community Development Board has sent us a request from the mayor to amend the parcels at the Salem Street and Park Street node from MX2 to MX1. The council can't vote to do that tonight. We just can vote to refer that to the Community Development Board for them to open public hearing, they would then hold a public hearing, make a recommendation, refer that back to the City Council, we would open a public hearing, and then take a final vote after that public hearing is closed. Are there members of the Council who have a comment or a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer the amendment to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Tseng, sorry. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on this vote to refer to the Community Development Board? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further hands on Zoom or discussion on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer the proposed zoning amendment to the Community Development Board. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears yes it's the affirmative one of the negative the motion passes to 5150 offered by President Bears executive minute session minutes request for executive session I requested the council under executive session or a few executive session minutes from the August 19 2025 special meeting pursuant to general laws chapter 38 section 22 g which states that the public body or its chair or designee shall add reasonable interviews, review the minutes of executive sessions to determine if the provisions of the subsection warrant continued non-disclosure. Such determination shall be announced at the body's next meeting and such announcement shall be included in the minutes of that meeting. Is there a motion to enter executive session? And I want to note that votes may be taken. Is there a motion? On the motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. We're entering executive session. Jim, if you could put up the note that we will be, we will return shortly.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we're reconvening an open session. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 2515 from the table and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The ordinance is ordained for third reading. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Yeah, this is a motion to reconsider. Sure, give me one second. Yeah. On the motion to reconsider the vote by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're first voting to reconsider, which means we'll take the vote a second time. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes to reconsider. We have a motion on the floor from Councilor Collins to take from the table and approve for third reading, paper 25105, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is this the third reading? Okay. Do you know, do you know when that was delivered?
[Zac Bears]: All right, I never received that email. Go ahead, that's fine. I'm just saying I've never seen it, so.
[Zac Bears]: So I apologize and- I'll take a look at it. I didn't receive the email. I don't know if I was just left off of it by accident, but we did request, you didn't receive it either, Councilor Tseng never received it. Councilor Lazzaro did not receive it. Councilor Callahan. Okay. So, tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, again, yeah, I'm not saying you didn't. And it sounds like there didn't get to us. I just want to make the point that we requested four months ago, and two months ago. And it sounds like we got something at best two days ago. And then actually, none of us got it. And some people saw it in an inbox tonight. And just as one person, I'm not really a fan of the delay the communication tactic to try to avoid the outcome. So I'm still going to stick with what I want to stick with. If they want to actually do their job and submit amendments, they're welcome to do so. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: You know looking at this agenda I didn't think this would be the meeting that pushed me over the edge to say what I'm about to say, but like the abject failure of the city administration to effectively communicate with the public and with this council about the basic things that we're trying to do as a city. You know, I've worked really hard to try to collaborate with this administration on a bunch of major initiatives, and I'm really proud that we've gotten some of them done, but like George was right. And, and I didn't think this would be the meeting or the set of circumstances and I promise I'm not trying to kill you. Like, it's just that the amount of time that we spend trying to Pull the administration to do the basic work to effectively communicate about the things that we're trying to do in this community, instead of like doing those things and doing the communication directly. It's, it's, it's, it's what we're always doing all the time, whether it's us whether it's the school committee whether it's the public schools, whether it's city staff, like, and the things that have happened over the last five or six months, like throwing the planning department under the bus, when they worked in really good faith on the zoning, or taking two months, and then another two months to just not respond to our requests about this ordinance, Going back to the overrides like the amount of work that we had to do to try to just get that to happen and then like the just lack of really serious commitment to communicating it about effectively, and then like to what Gaston said tonight about the high school. No, and no and they're open meetings, they're all public meetings, but like the effort is not there from the administration to adequately put communications resources to informing people about these public meetings and making sure people attend. And then when people come and say I had no idea that this was happening we say oh they were public meetings but actually the answer is like we held public meetings we have no control over the communications resources of the city. and the mayor's office didn't put any money into any of it so people actually didn't know and then it comes back to what George says here often which is people didn't inform and want to be involved and you know what like we've worked in good faith to do this well and like I'm not gonna throw away the baby with the bath water and say that the work product that we've done isn't good but all of these threads that people are talking about around all the things that we actually share and want to do are coming back to the same point over and over and over again which is The administration is not effectively communicating with this council or with residents or even inside City Hall, about what's going on in the city, and it's It's the reason that people are not more aligned. It's the reason that people are frustrated. It's the reason that some people aren't feeling heard. And we don't have the authority or the resources to actually do that outreach ourselves. And we can't force them to respond to us. And then they leave us holding the bag. Like standing up here having not even seen this document because somebody forgot to BCC someone and then never had the courtesy to call me about it. I get more than I ever have I think how George and a bunch of residents feel about the way that the city is communicating about the things that are going on in the city. And to be honest, I'm sorry that it took me. I'm sorry that it took me this long to, to say something about it and I'm sorry I'm just saying something about it now but like you try to work in good faith and collaborate to try to make progress for the city. And then this is what you get for it. So I'm sure this is going to cause me trouble for having just said all of this. Whatever. I don't have the time to do this work anymore of making the administration do the bare minimum to try to do their jobs. So thanks. That's my rant. Tried to avoid making a rant. Call me George Scarpelli tonight. Because no. I don't think that I didn't mean to say that, that you're not just like I didn't really fully, I get it, grasp until it comes a couple of the things that have happened tonight. Some of what you've been saying over the last year. So, I just want to I want to say that out loud. All right, I get to go buy him a drink. The motion. We had a motion to reconsider the vote is to take the paper off the table and approve for third reading. I'm seeing no hands on Zoom. You would like to speak? Sure. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Judy. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yet to take up the table and approve the third reading. Yep. reconsidered motion to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, yes, affirmative one of the negative the motion passes. Is there a motion on the floor. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Test, test. Good, Shane. Medford City Council, 15th regular meeting, September 9th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. Please rise to salute the flag. 25137 announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25137 offered by Councilor Lazzaro and President Bears. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council acknowledge and celebrate National Recovery Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you guys. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to thank you guys. I completely agree. I think talking about recovery is something to celebrate, something to be proud of, something that the community can join in with and help people with is the way to think about it. Fights any stigma and brings it around too. We want our community members to thrive and be healthy and stay here with us. So I'm really thank you for your work. On the motion to council is Lazzaro, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We have everyone so I can voice vote. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Records, records of the meeting of August 5th were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. So this section is to refer to committee for further discussion. So I'm going to read them and then I'm going to take it as a motion from the proponent to send it to committee and we'll take a vote on it. Refer to committee for further discussion to 5138 offered by Council as our own Councilor Tseng, whereas there have been numerous immigration and customs enforcement raids in Medford over the past several months disrupting the peace in Medford and ripping apart families, and whereas it is clear that the metric community shows up to care for its neighbors when they are in need. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a meeting in the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety to discuss methods to protect dependents of Medford residents who have been abducted and or deported by Federal Immigration Enforcement Officers. Be it further resolved that the Committee discuss issuing Freedom of Information Act requests to ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement upon receiving knowledge of the arrest and detention of any Medford resident. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the public health and community safety committee seconded by seconded by council is our Mister clerk please call the all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Whereas the federal government has been summarily cutting important social services like Medicare and Medicaid, Section 8 of the Housing Voucher Program, amid record homelessness and food assistance for hungry families, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a meeting in the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety to discuss methods whereby the city can protect vulnerable residents and residents can access other services via local and state nonprofit sources to get the help they need. be it further resolved that members of the Health Department be invited to that meeting. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to send to the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 25130, petition for a grant of location, National Grid. North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed installation of new gas main between 136 and 190 Boston Ave. National grid plan WL 1491849. We were hereby notified by the order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, September 9th at 7 p.m., a link to be posted no later than Friday, September 5th, on a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a new gas main, including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures, located at 136-190 Boston Ave, wherefore it requests that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted a grant of location permit for a new gas main on Boston Ave, together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of gas, in accordance with plan WO-149-1849, originally dated July 14th, 2025, and received and filed in the Office of the City Clerk on August 21st, 2025, and available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Room 103, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford. The following are the streets and highways referred to in plan W0149-1849, 136 to 190 Boston Ave. National grid to install new gas main is depicted on the plan. The engineering recommends that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant of location is limited to approximately 125 feet of dual eight-inch gas main with the southernmost sidewalk across Boston Avenue Bridge depicted on the plan. Before starting the work the contractor shall notify dig safe and obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a trench permit, pursuant to section 74141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures conduits duck banks pipes or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted National Grid shall ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked for any excavation. Project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of installation. At least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate about our communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. Signed, City Clerk. All right, do we have a representative from National Grid? We do. If you could describe the project and then we'll ask any questions and then we'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing open. As part of this public hearing, if you could say if you're in favor, in opposition, or otherwise, and members of the public are welcome to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who would like to speak regarding this project? If you're in person, you can come to the podium. If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? On the motion approved by Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Diana. All right. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. Petition for a common vixen license, CB Scoops. Do we have CB Scoops here present? Great. If you could tell us a little bit about your application, and then we'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Second the affirmative, then the negative. The motion passes. Thanks. Good luck. 2-5-1-3-1, petition for amendment to common victors license, extended hours, Great American Beer Hall. Do we have a proponent? Yes, we do. Give me one second to find your paperwork in here.
[Zac Bears]: That I knew. All right, looks like the request is for 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. every day. Brief explanation, early morning coffee, late night pizza. And with that, I'll turn it over to you guys to explain what you're looking for. Brian Zarather, 142 Mystic Ave, Great American Beer Hall.
[Zac Bears]: So actually, recently this week, we've come to an agreement with Nassau Donuts to move them from Somerville to the Great American Beer Hall. So early morning coffee, yeah, donuts, it's gonna be pretty cool. So that's the 7 a.m. request, which I couldn't be more excited for. Gonna start to build out pretty much immediately on the coffee stuff, and so it's gonna be a pretty cool, fun concept. Late night, it's we're really losing this crowd to Somerville and Everett. And so there's the 2am licenses available over there. And, you know, We've been open a year and we made 1000 mistakes and we've learned a lot about what works and what doesn't. And so I know the noise complaints from our neighbors, we've taken very seriously. We've got rid of the outside DJs, we're now shutting the garage door, doing everything that we can to mitigate that.
[Zac Bears]: Lastly, we're a year in and we've been approached by Nextdoor to do a hotel that we're talking to, apartments across the street. And all of this really started with the Great American Beer Hall, like opening up on Mystic Ave and we're finally seeing some development opportunities at our abutting properties. So I know we can't please everyone, But I think the greater good of Medford, this is, this is really important for us. Thanks. We'll go to members of the council and then we'll go to public comment. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I'm available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to some other councilors, but if you want to go first, you guys, if you want to say anything about what you've been doing or answering the councilor's questions. We can wait to the end. Okay. go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Lazzaro, Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Are you guys already 1 a.m.? Yes. They're already 1 a.m.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So the motion is to amend to, uh, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and 1 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday. Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I guess I could have said it that way. All right. Do we have any other comments from Councilors? All right. Yes, on Sundays, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, it would be 7 AM to 1 AM. And then on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, it would be 7 AM to 2 AM.
[Zac Bears]: So what are your current hours versus what's your license?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, do you have any more questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue, either in person or on Zoom? If you'd like to speak in person, you can come to the podium. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, you can raise your hand and we'll come back to you guys. Thanks, you can come to the podium. Hi, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I spoke with our economic development director. And I think he had some thoughts on the on the music specifically. So I do see his hand. But before I go to him, is there anyone else who wants to speak on this? He was here or on zoom if anyone else would like to come to the podium and talk about this, their experience or, or raise your hand on zoom before I go to our economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this matter? Sure. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to our economic development director. Oh, yeah, I'm gonna go to the economic development director on Zoom. Sal, if you could just let us know what your thoughts are and if you could talk about some of the restrictions on live music that we talked about, or music in general.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Great. Thank you. But we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks. All right. Go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Leming. I have a few questions myself.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, just one second. All right, we'll go back to you guys. If you wanna talk about maybe additional mitigation, you might be willing to consider around the sound. You know, I was in there with you guys when it was a shell, and then I was in there right after you had opened. And, you know, it's a big space. And I mean, we're really glad that it's been a successful business. But one thing I will say, I have noticed when I've been in there is it's a big space, and there's a lot of noise bouncing around. So it doesn't surprise me that we've had some of the noise, maybe, you know, that that building's maybe not capturing all of it. So I was wondering if maybe you could talk a little bit more about that. The garage door is our biggest issue. So when the garage door is shut, it's like night and day. You can't hear outside. When the door is open and we have the DJ or the band up back, it just flows down and it goes into the street. The key for us is getting that door closed at 9pm every night, which we were not doing. So it was a learning curve, something that we talked to with Sal, and we came back and said, hey, we got to get this door shut. And that's the only way that we're going to mitigate the noise going down the street. And how long have you been close to that? Like a week and a half. A week and a half.
[Zac Bears]: If you don't mind, I do and I normally wouldn't do this to just someone who spoke in public comment, but to our friend who is the sound person. Have you noticed a difference. Since the garage doors been closed. Last Friday. If you could come, could you come to the podium? Sorry, I gotta, if we're gonna say more than a thumbs up or a thumbs down, we gotta hear your name.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate it. So it sounds like it might be somewhat better. But, you know, it's only been doing it, you've only had one, one DJ night since then, it sounds like so, you know, a lot of sample sites to go on here. You know, I had spoken with our economic development director, I think, if we put the condition of no outdoor music and closing the door at 9pm, 9pm, and also would recommend maybe a little bit of a different look, 30 days, 90 days and 180 days. So that would be October 9th, December 9th and March 9th. If we get the noise complaints, any noise complaints or code complaints. So to folks, if you're hearing noise or if you are seeing something in the neighborhood, send that to the code enforcement team. They will send that information to us. And then we would be able to review those complaints at each of those junctures. And if we have to go back to the 1 a.m. time, if we're seeing a significant impact, That would be a way that we could take in the complaints that residents in the neighborhood are sending if there continue to be issues. Maybe we come back and have another conversation at one of those points about additional sound stuff or some some changes that you guys have been thinking about and we can continue the conversation. But I think those would be conditions that we could we could see if this works. And if it doesn't work, we could talk about more solutions. Absolutely. Okay. Would someone just amend to include those conditions? Thank you, Councilor Sanders. So we have a motion by Vice President Collins to approve as amended to 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday through Wednesday, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday to Saturday with the conditions of no outdoor music and closing the large door at 9 p.m. and then a 30 day, 90 day and 180 day review to request that the building department and code enforcement send complaints that they receive about this to the council so that we can, if we have to consider reverting back to the earlier hours. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. And what do you guys do in regards to trash, like in the immediate vicinity of your, you know, if you see something on the sidewalk? Yeah, yeah, we have, we have someone there five days a week picking up trash in the morning at our site, so we keep it very clean, that's really important. Does that extend to like missing out maybe across the street? Yeah, I do the, I do 134, 151, and 142. Okay. All right. Do we have any more questions from members of the council? Or do we need the motion read back? Seeing none, on the motion by Vice President Collins to approve as amended with conditions, seconded by Councilor Leming, and again, this would be 7 a.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. Thursday, Friday, Saturday. They cannot have outdoor music and have to close the large door. They call it the garage door. I said it's a large door. at 9 PM, and then we're going to receive complaints in 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days, any complaints that are sent to our building department and code enforcement. And if we receive a significant number of complaints, we'll come back and review, pulling those later hours back. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion passes. 25132, petition for a common mixtures license, Locolito. Do we have Locolito in person or on the line? All right, there he is. The great coffee shop mystery of Medford is here to tell us what his plans are. Alvaro, how you doing? Good, thanks. Good to see you. Good to see you. So when am I buying coffee at Localito?
[Zac Bears]: All right, tell us a little bit more about your application.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions for the applicant, Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're all excited. Somebody said on Reddit, they said, if you mention that they post on their social media, it'll be another month before they open, so.
[Zac Bears]: People are excited, it's almost fall, it's warm drink season, you know. Hopefully we can deliver. I'll stop badgering you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, slowly but surely. Putting the puzzle together.
[Zac Bears]: Get my money at breakfast, lunch and dinner.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It's our duty to try to get every secret we can. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, unless Sal, do you wanna? I'll recognize the economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Good luck. Thank you, I hope see you all in that place. I was at Tacuba on the first day, so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much, good luck. All right, 25-133, petition for a common ventures license, Inspire Cafe. Do we have Inspire Cafe with us, either in person or on Zoom? I'm not seeing them here in person, I'm not seeing a hand on Zoom. Councilor Scarpelli, have you had a chance to review this? I know this is for... Oh, George, I forgot to unmute you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, and we did re send that out. I think the link that got posted to the events calendar by the communications department didn't have that on it. So that might be the issue. If you are hearing from people directly, you know, the link on the city council's meeting portal is functioning as normal. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 25.134, petition for a common victor's license for sidebar. Do we have? Yes, we do. Wonderful. We knew there was one outstanding thing. We heard it got addressed. Yes. So I'll recognize you to tell us a little bit more about your business and then we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. So I believe we have a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Good luck.
[Zac Bears]: And have a good hockey season.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take papers 25-141 and 25-142. Seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. One second here. Paper 25141, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Appointment, Teda DeRosa. Dear Ms. President, members of Medford City Council, recommendation of the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following candidates to serve on the Board of Trustees for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Funds. Sincerely, Mayor Brantling O'Kirk. Hi guys.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to introduce and talk about why you want to be on the board and then we'll take a vote.
[Zac Bears]: great. Thank you so much. Congratulations on being recommended for appointment.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see any issues, but, you know, I'm just one of the seven. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: Great, on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It was budget night.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion by, who did I say it was by? Council is our seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you for your service to our city. 25142, submitted by Mayor Brianna Lago-Kern, Medford Community Preservation Committee appointment, Myisha Majumder, dear President Ferris and members of the Medford City Council, I respectfully request to recommend that your honorable body confirm the appointment of Myisha Majumder of Medford to the Community Preservation Committee for a term to expire September 10th, 2026. Myisha will be present during the meeting. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lago-Kern, Mayor. Myisha, I see you on Zoom, so I'll unmute you. Congratulations on your recommendation for appointment. If you want to tell us a little bit about why you want to serve on the CPC and then we will go from there.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions? Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations and thank you so much for your service to the city.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I think they're here on 25 140 capital stabilization and water and capital stabilization appropriation requests.
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Councilor Scarpelli to take 25 140 seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. It's a bit of my bare brain legal current capital stabilization fund water and sewer capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. Dear president bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriations of one capital stabilization fund and the amount of $2,346,101 and zero cents on the following items DPW $357,287 for a four wheel drive dump truck and sender with plow. $300,000 for design development of the seven-acre lawn cemetery expansion, $200,000 for stump removal, $180,000 for removal of displaced grave soil, $154,592 for a fleet tow truck, $100,158 for a three-quarter ton pickup truck with lift gate, $94,055 for a dump truck, $60,000 for field refurbishment, and $32,000 for a leaf vacuum and leaf box for a dump truck. I'm going to pause the reading there. We'll take them in order. We'll do DPW facilities, fire, general, police, and then we'll come back to water and sewer. So let's start with the DPW.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions on the DPW items in front of us? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On that point, Are there alternative non-cement, non-concrete, non-asphalt uses that we could use a tree pit for? Like, could we put smaller shrub-like plantings or flowers or something that's not a tree?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Now, are we going to pave over the tree pits that no longer fit our sizing and then we'll go back in the future and break that again or what are we going to do?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any kind of intermediate solution, like a small garden instead of just going to... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Great. I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng. And then I have a couple more questions on the cemetery, but I'll come back to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Does that estimate, the 10 to 15, include both the removal of the soil, you know, the the giant pile of dirt that's next to the lots right now in the back of, and the expansion, or is that just the expansion into the current conservation land? So the 300k would just be the seven acre design. Okay. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I meant more your 10 to 15 year estimate of lengthening the service on the cemetery. That would just be the seven acre expansion. Got it. Do you have cemetery questions. Okay. Okay, let's stick with the cemetery and then we'll come to the leaf vacuum. It's just like 30 things on here. I don't want to jump in.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have a couple questions and then maybe we can go to the discussion. I also see we have the president of M-BELT here. I don't know if just listening or planning to say something. Just listening, okay. I'm also on the M-BELT board. We've talked about this a little bit. I've talked with my fellow board members about it. I have some concerns about the expansion. I guess my main question is if we could just talk about kind of the big picture here. Right now, when are we thinking that Oak Grove is going to no longer be able to have new folks buried there, which four to five years is the estimate that we're using right now. All right. And that includes the if we remove that soil pile is that add some time.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And then if we were to, and then kind of this project that we're talking about, and maybe if folks have more questions about it, I've reviewed it pretty extensively, so if folks want to look more into it. this would be, you know, when the Brooks Estate, when all of that conservation negotiation happened in the 90s, there's essentially some land currently used for like some storage of materials and the stumps, dumping of stumps, that's on what I think most folks going into there would consider Kind of on the Brooks estate side of the access drive, but it's cemetery land and has some cemetery use this would be expanding the cemetery into that land so be kind of changing that from more of like the forested more conservation use to more like the cemetery use on the other side of the access drive. Is that fair fair.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that. Yeah, I think along those lines, you know, I have some I appreciate what you know the collaborative approach and trying to adjust the design I think that's really important, I think, maybe even going further down the road and figure out how we can align. You know some of the funding that and belt has received the works of state land trust has received for the access drive. I think maybe turning this into a more collaborative project overall for the whole area. might be the way to go down the road here. Because I personally, you know, the concept design and where we've been at so far, you know, I personally have some concerns, you know, as a Councilor, as someone who just uses the area, as a Berks estate board member about the concept. It sounds like we're already talking about making some changes as we move through the design phase. But I think there are some real questions to be raised about, you know, if we're extending the life of the cemetery not very long, but making permanent changes to, you know, some of the one of the largest, certainly the largest city-owned green space, you know, in the city. How do we balance that? And if we can do it in a way that really enhances that space and makes it more accessible, you know, for both the Brooks Estate Land Trust and for the cemetery, you know, maybe there's a maintenance, maybe we do the maintenance yard and shed and But we can do that in a way where, you know, that can help with the new access drive. Those kinds of things, I think, are considerations that I would want to take into account. And I guess, saying all that, my question is, you know, do you think that those considerations and those collaborative conversations are something we're going to be able to incorporate in the design process that will be funded through this appropriation?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. And I, and I appreciate that. And I think more just what I'm saying is since we're starting the conversation tonight, this is kind of the, the first, the first appropriation on the design. Like I want to have the full scope of the conversation in front of us. You know, who knows if I'll be, be around for those conversations here or not, but I, you know, I would have a very hard time voting for an appropriation of three or $4 million for something that looks a lot like the concept that came out. I'd have a much, I think, and I think a lot of folks have a much. you know, I think it would be a better project and a better proposal if we were able to incorporate more of multiple uses, not just that this is not just a cemetery expansion, but this is about what does that part of the city, that city-owned land, whether it's M-Belt or the cemetery land, look like for the long-term future? Because it's a really significant investment. And I think if we're saying, well, it's $3.5 million to keep the cemetery going for eight or 10 more years, that's an argument, but we have a lot of competing interests for city resources. Maybe that's not an argument that wins the day. If it's we're going to spend five or $6 million to keep the cemetery going and keep, you know, really enhance access to this, you know, 50 acres of open space for the next 200 years, you know, that's a different kind of benefit, I think. So just want to have that framing around it. Absolutely. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think maybe if nothing else, although I think we actually agree on a lot between the, works of state in the cemetery. I think the fact that both of those areas have gone under addressed and underserved for a really long time is a point of unity. Um, and you know, I think also points us in the direction of a solution in my opinion. So thank you for having that conversation. Absolutely. All right. Leaf vacuum. Councilors are Oh, Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Mike, are you going to talk about the fire pickup trucks or the police cruisers? Let's do that now, too, so we can get you out of here, too. Oh, OK. All right. We'll do the fire pickup trucks, $166,000 for two pickup trucks?
[Zac Bears]: Great. We got the chief. We got you. What are we doing here?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else you want to add, Chief Evans?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Pretty simple. Great. And then maybe it looks like I think for police, we also only have the cruiser. So we'll take you guys. And if you want Mike to do the talking, that's your call, but.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions on the fire and police vehicles from the council? Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we can't give you any, but we just want to know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I mean, we hear you. The only thing I can do is give you less cruisers. Yeah, that's the only thing the council can do we can we can just cut, we can increase we can amend we can just cut or say no, or say yes. Hey, even then, right? So if we, I think having a conversation about getting on a schedule, especially given the scheduling concerns that are now an issue for you with the timeframe of ordering these things.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That's helpful information I have too. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then I got one more question for you, Mike. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And we've done two or three engines and a ladder in the last five years. Does that sound about right?
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any other questions on the vehicles in this appropriation? Mike, I just have one question for you. How are you guys doing down there in fleet staff wise with the volume of work that you guys have to do?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. When you say waiting for applicants, you got some open positions or I have two open positions right now.
[Zac Bears]: Say again? When you say the market, you mean the compensation or? That's part of it.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We really appreciate your team, too. I just wanted to... I can sense that you're working a little harder than you, you know, maybe a little overwork.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: I know.
[Zac Bears]: I know how hard they work and, you know, Mike's usually, usually level-headed, but I could tell tonight he's been maybe a little overworked. All right. Thanks you guys. We're going to go to facilities and then we'll come to Owen for water sewer. Do we have Paul Riggi on Zoom for the facilities items? I see him, I just asked him to unmute. Hey, Paul, how you doing?
[Zac Bears]: Good, I'll read the items. I'll read the items real quick. We had 340,000 for ADA compliant renovations for two bathrooms on the first floor of City Hall, 79,200 for design work at the Hegner Center, 32,000 for fire department paving projects, and 30,000 for the replacement of the hot water heater at the police station.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Thank you, Paul. Do we have any questions on that from members of the council? All right. Seeing none, the only other item in the general capital stabilization fund was $16,500 for updates to the capital improvement plan. The chief of staff did tell me she wasn't going to be able to be here tonight to talk about that. Yeah. So we'll go to the Water Sewer Capital Stabilization. We have City Engineer Wartella here. We have $175,000 for additional costs relating to a sewer line rehab project and $60,000 for a sewer survey project related to inflow and infiltration. Owen, what's up with this?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just the where Councilor Callahan is getting is we have tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to work on the water and sewer system. Yes. You know, there's big backlog.
[Zac Bears]: I know it's an oversimplification, but let's say when you started making the plans to fix it, the backlog was 100%. Have we made it 10% of the way through it yet? No, no.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And to Owen's point, so you're making one point, Tim, which is that the rates were too low for too long. It's basically paying the minimum on your credit card. You're not actually addressing the issue. And it's built up over time.
[Zac Bears]: But Owen also made the point that one of the main ways that we're trying to address it right now is like when new development comes in, getting them to make significant investments. Yes. So, you know, There's essentially two things we increase in the water rates, or, you know, when we're trying to bring this new growth and that's a main way that we're addressing this problem as well.
[Zac Bears]: So you're saying that, for example, when we see a large project, we're making the developers replace the infrastructure?
[Zac Bears]: But point being that if there were no new developments, then the ratepayers are paying for it entirely because we have to do it anyway.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions on this? Do we have a motion on the appropriation paper on the motion approved by Council, let me second by second by Councilman Lazzaro. All those in favor. Sorry actually, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Thank you very much. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who wants to talk about this.
[Zac Bears]: We do not have, sorry, go ahead. There's no one here to talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure what it's for. Last time they did the capital improvement plan, it was Collins Center. So I would guess it's probably Collins Center to update it. Okay. But I didn't get that information.
[Zac Bears]: All right, not seeing anyone else on this paper. So Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 90 negative, the motion passes. Thanks, you guys. I told folks that we'd do an executive session at 8.30, it's 9.15. Could somebody move to take that so we can move into executive session? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, I'll take paper 25.144, and then I'll read it, and then we'll have to take a vote to go into executive session. So this is just on the motion to take it off the table. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. All right, paper 25144 litigation settlement request for executive session votes may be taken dear President Bears and members of the city council. I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body and enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A Section 21A.3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning the matter of Teamsters Local 25 and the City of Medford, AAA No. 01-24-007-8702. I also recommend that the Council's agenda state in the Executive Session Notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Steven Johnson from KP Law will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brian Oliver and Mayor. I'm going to create a breakout room and we're going to go into room 207. Kevin, you're welcome to join us if you want. Give me one second there. And then we'll come back into open session to finish the rest of the agenda. On the motion to enter executive session by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. We're going into executive session. We'll return to open session. On the motion to reconvene an open session by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Council Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. All right, reverting to the regular order of business. We have 25103 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, other corridors, districts. This was tabled from the August 5th meeting at the request of the Community Development Board. We still do not have an agreement between myself and the mayor to announce on the zoning project. So I would recommend that we table this until we know if we're gonna update the city's 60 year old broken zoning. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion of Vice President Collins to table, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25.124, the Tree Committee Ordinance. Solicitor Foley has asked that we give a little more time for review on this. So is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming, all those in favor? opposed motion passes 25135 offered by Vice President Collins be a result or whereas the Fair Act would protect workers in Massachusetts. from harmful effects of proliferating AI by prohibiting employers from relying exclusively on AI decision-making systems to make employment-related decisions, by restricting the surveillance of workers and the collection, use, and sharing of surveillance data, by shoring up worker autonomy protections and protecting workers from reprisal for refusing or questioning the directives of AI-generated instructions. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council expresses support of H-77 and S-35, an act fostering artificial intelligence responsibility, also known as the FAIR Act, We have further resolved the city clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford legislative delegation, as well as to the chairs of the joint committee on advanced information technology, the internet and cyber security vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion members of the Council? Any discussion members of the public? I thought there might be. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further comments, no further hands on Zoom, on the motion, all those in favor. motion passes 25 1, 3, 6, offer by Councilor Leming. Whereas Medford's current inclusionary zoning as defined under chapter 94 section 94.8.1.6 states that at least a certain percent of new units have to be affordable as defined under Mass General Law and are tiered as follows. 10 to 24 lots or units, 10% affordable units, 25 to 49 lots or units, 13% affordable units, 50 or more lots or units, 15% affordable units, and whereas Medford's current policy under 94.18 dictates that if the percentage were not a whole number, it needs to be rounded up, and whereas this creates huge incentives to build the discrete intervals, for instance, strongly incentivizing nine-unit properties but not 10, or strongly incentivizing 20-unit properties but not 21, and whereas other communities such as Watertown and Somerville have incentive plans that allow for fractional payments to the Affordable Housing Trust in lieu of affordable units. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Benford update its incentive structures to allow fractional payments. Be it further resolved that this paper be referred to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board for specific recommendations on how to update the above-referenced policies. Be it further resolved that this paper be referred to the Administration and Finance Committee for further discussion. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Um, if you want to go over it again, Councilor Leming, but I think this should go to planning and permitting, not to administration and finance, but go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I'm going to refer to the planning and permitting committee seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 24153 submitted by Mayor Brandon Lungo-Koehn. Approval of funding for lot apartment claim over 2,500. Judith Dean for $3,448.36. I'll go to Solicitor Foley. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: This is the City Solicitor of the City of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Scarapelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpellilli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you next meeting. I don't think so. Stick it out, stick it out.
[Zac Bears]: No, not yet. So we'll have a little more time.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: I think we'll be out of here quickly. 24.5145 submitted by Mayor Brianna Lago-Kern. Request for a food truck permit. Request for a food truck permit for chicken and rice guys, September 25th, 2025. Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, please stop shouting over me. Said Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, please stop shouting over me. Dear President Beyers and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to council approval then there's a required to adhere to health department food and safety requirements business name chicken and rice guys, September 27 2025 12pm to 4pm cotton shell event mystic river celebration, and I'm reading it to read this part. Spend the afternoon at the Condon Shell at Medford's Biggest Arts Festival. Watch live performances, browse local artisan crafts, get to know local businesses and organizations, eat food, and take part in any number of fun activities for all ages, including a knuckle bones play area for kids. I don't know what that means, so you should go to the Mystic River Celebration to find it out. You want to? All right, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's great. Enjoy. For the kids. Mystic River Celebration, September 27, 2025, noon to 4pm. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehnmayer. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed motion passes public participation, Sharon DSO had to go, she's requested that we table this is there a motion to table the motion table by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro all those in favor. Opposed motion passes is there a motion on the floor on the motion to adjourn. Okay, yes. All right. Polar participation. Is there anyone else would like to speak on any topic for three minutes. We got one person name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You aced it. And I just want to say that, yeah, I think the messaging is horrific. It's certainly not the first instance of awful, hateful speech that we've seen on that message board. And residents have persistently stood up to say that it doesn't represent our community. But I understand your position. And I'm going to go quickly to Councilor Leming and then Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, Micah. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're just gonna we're gonna take it. I'm sorry, Micah. Thank you. I got to respect the rules of this. All right. Thank you for bringing that up. I think we're going to hear more about it. I am also hopeful that we will see some of the surrounding businesses and residents. You know, we saw the last time a few months ago when they had a sign, Modern Pastry, put up a sign right next to it, directly opposing it. That is another way to use speech to counteract speech like this. So there's a lot of different approaches that we could take. Is there a motion on the floor? Is there anyone else like to speak? Public participation either in person or on Zoom. All right, seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the committee for hosting this event and my fellow candidates for being here today. I'm Zach Baers. Six years ago, I ran for Medford City Council because I saw what decades of shrinking government and reactive decision-making had done to our city. Medford had become a city of no. No, you can't get help at City Hall unless you know the right person. No, the city won't address the housing crisis that's made it too hard to build a future here. No, the city won't stop the slow bleed of decades of budget cuts that left our streets crumbling and our schools without the resources students and teachers need to thrive. But together, we've accomplished so much to do big things, make hard decisions, and start to become a City of Yes. A city that says yes to more transparent, open government, with clear goals, processes, and principles for how we make decisions together. Yes to finally creating a comprehensive plan, already rezoning Mystic Ave, and doing the rezoning project that will encourage real and transformative growth, build more housing, and revitalize our business districts. Yes to passing questions seven and eight last year to stop the bleeding and invest in our schools and DPW. And yes to a real plan for growth and new revenue so we don't rely on regular overrides to provide basic services. This has only been possible because of the commitment of so many residents and city leaders to work together for a simple and just cause. To make Medford, and even better place, a city that works for all of us. A city that leads with shared values, clear principles, and delivers real results for our residents. A city government committed to leading with compassion, hard work, and supporting those most in need, to listening to the unheard, not just the loudest voices, to making tough choices and telling people the hard truths, not the easy falsehoods we might want to believe. Voters have a clear choice this November. Do we vote to keep moving forward? My answer is yes, and I believe the people of the city of Medford will keep saying yes to moving forward too. It's been the honor of my life to serve my hometown, and if I earn your vote for my fourth term, I guarantee that I will keep fighting for a Medford where our city government lifts everyone up and solves big problems together. If you want compassionate, principled, and effective leadership to keep Medford moving forward, I ask for your vote on September 16th and November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the committee for hosting this event and my fellow candidates for being here today. I'm Zach bears. Six years ago I ran for Medford City Council because I saw what decades of shrinking government and reactive decision making had done to our city. Medford had become a city of no. No you can't get help at City Hall unless you know the right person. No the city won't address the housing crisis that's made it too hard to build a future here. No the city won't stop the slow bleed. decades of budget cuts that left our streets crumbling and our schools without the resources students and teachers need to thrive. But together we've accomplished so much to do big things make hard decisions and start to become a city of yes a city that says yes to more transparent open government with clear goals processes and principles for how we make decisions together. Yes to finally creating a comprehensive plan already rezoning Mystic Ave and doing the rezoning project that will encourage real and transformative growth, build more housing and revitalize our business districts. Yes to passing questions seven and eight last year to stop the bleeding and invest in our schools and DPW. And yes to a real plan for growth and new revenue so we don't rely on regular overrides to provide basic services. This has only been possible because of the commitment of so many residents and city leaders to work together for a simple and just cause, to make Medford, an even better place, a city that works for all of us, a city that leads with shared values, clear principles, and delivers real results for our residents, a city government committed to leading with compassion, hard work, and supporting those most in need. to listening to the unheard, not just the loudest voices, to making tough choices and telling people the hard truths, not the easy falsehoods we might want to believe. Voters have a clear choice this November. Do we vote to keep moving forward? My answer is yes, and I believe the people of the city of Medford will keep saying yes to moving forward too. It's been the honor of my life to serve my hometown, and if I earn your vote for my fourth term, I guarantee that I will keep fighting for a Medford where our city government lifts everyone up and solves big problems together. If you want compassionate, principled, and effective leadership to keep Medford moving forward, I ask for your vote on September 16th and November 4th. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 14th regular meeting, Medford City Council, August 5th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is absent tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Present. Six present, one absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records, records. The records of the meeting of July 15th were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: One report. That's next on the agenda. Oh, that's the second. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That's okay. On the motion of Council Leming to approve the record, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 19-070 offered by President Bears. Committee with a whole report to follow. This was the report that we just received. It's on the tree committee ordinance meeting that we had on July 15. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee. July 16, 2025 report. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25121, petition for a common evictiator's license, CB Scoops. next gen scoops, LLC, DBA, CB scoops for 53 high street, Medford, Steven catchola. Uh, present, uh, has presented a petition for a common victor's license for CB scoops. Councilor Scarpelli as subcommittee on licensing permitting and science chair, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. 16 affirmative, 1 absent. The motion is tabled. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Communications from city officers and employees. 25127 offered by Election Commission. Medford call for election September 2025. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such inhabitants of the city of Benford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at our municipal preliminary on Tuesday, September 16th, 2025, to assemble at the polling places and their respective wards and precincts, and then to give their votes for city council and the polls of said municipal preliminary shall be open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. Be it further ordered that the following name polling places and they, are hereby designated for use at the Municipal Preliminary on September 16, 2025. We'll recognize the Elections Commission and Elections Manager.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anything you'd like to add about early voting, mail voting?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And for mail voting?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And if people want to know their election day polling place, what's the best way to find that information?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions for... Do we have any questions for the elections manager or the members of the Elections Commission? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions for the elections manager?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, Jim.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25128, the call, sorry, the warrant. This is, let me read it. Warrant for the Medford September 2025 municipal preliminary election to the residents of the city of Medford. Greetings in the name of the Commonwealth, You are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said city or town who are qualified to vote in elections to vote at the various wards and precincts on Tuesday, the 16th day of September, 2025, from 7am to 8pm for the following purpose to cast their votes in the municipal preliminary election for the candidates for the following offices, offices, council, As there on at the time and place of said voting given under our hands this day, fifth day of August 2025, the Medford City Council posted at each polling location the library and City Hall, no later than September 5 2025. Anything more to add on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we just have to do two votes on two documents. Great. Is there a motion on the motion to approve by by Council is our second by second by Council let me Mr. please follow up.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And good luck. Everybody vote on the 16th or early or by mail. 25125, offered by President Bears, MBTA bus stop improvements presentation. We have a presentation from the MBTA on a bus stop improvement. Do we have MBTA folks here on the call? The clerk will make you a co-host.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could you make Katie and the co-host?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We can hear you and you should be able to start video and if you want to share your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: We can't see your screen. It's not in slideshow.
[Zac Bears]: We can see your screen.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Katie. Appreciate this work. This is an important priority to improve bus connectivity and accessibility near the new Medford Tufts Greenline station. So I know a lot of residents have been talking about this and asking for it and our traffic direct and transportation director and our traffic team are consider this a priority and I'm glad that we can consider it tonight. I'm going to go to members of the council for questions. We go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to clarify, are there going to be any changes made to lighting or will there be sound installations that don't currently exist?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Hearing no second, are there any other motions or questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor 25126 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Sorry about that. One second. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 138, Sections 4 and 5, approve the appointment of Mark Lally, 3 Smith Lane, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, to the Garden Commission for a term of three years to expire November 18th, 2028. Mark will be present via Zoom. Copies of their resume and appointment letters are attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Do we have Mark on Zoom? Mark, could you raise your hand? Great. Mark, I'm going to let you turn on your video, and then we'll request you to unmute. You should be able to turn on your video now if you'd like to do that.
[Zac Bears]: That's okay. Thanks for being here. We've received your request for appointment by the mayor. Is there anything else you'd like to share about why you'd like to be on the garden commission or anything else you'd like the council to know?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Mark. Do we have any questions for members of the Council? Hearing and seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none in the negative, one absent. Motion passes. Mark, invite me over for some of Medford's own sometime. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Reverting back to the regular order of business, motions, orders, and resolutions. 25103 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance other quarters districts for referrals to the Community Development Board Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table paper 250103 to the September 9th regular meeting by Vice President Collins seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes and the measure is tabled. I'm going to turn the chair over to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and thank you for chairing the meeting. This is our second meeting where we have this formally on the agenda. It was tabled, well, it was delayed by a councilor delay on June 24th, and then further tabled on July 15th to have more time for discussions with city staff and incorporate some changes that I believe address some ability to implement and also make clear the intent of this ordinance. I spoke at length on June 24th about why I proposed this ordinance. We've heard from many residents about this ordinance and how they feel about it and their opinions on it. But at the end of the day, the purpose intent is written into the ordinance itself. It says the city of Manfred will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment of its funds and entities that support the needs of peacetime and daily life and meet the city's goals of conducting local government in a quote, accountable, transparent, innovative, stable, ethical, representative, and responsible way. And that's what this ordinance does, Madam Chair. We are in a unique moment in this world where we are seeing ecocide at incredible levels. Our planet is being destroyed by corporations who care more about next quarter's profit than the continued existence of our ecosystems and the ability of humans to stay alive on this planet. We are seeing a federal administration that is partnering with for profit private prisons and detention centers to lock people up, in many cases, extra legally, and then trade that on the open market for profit. We are seeing weapons manufacturers and right-wing extremists across the world fomenting violence and killing and destruction in countries on nearly every continent, again, for profit and for next quarter's earnings rather than the injuries and death that we're seeing to so many people, especially so many children. And we are seeing a federal administration and a global right-wing movement that is committing massive human rights violations across the world, in countries across the world. They are abetting each other, they are supporting each other. Homes destroyed, families completely wiped out, and it is essential that all of us, whether that's us as individuals, us as communities, us as organizations, or working together through local government, that we say that if we have funds, if we have these public funds, we are not going to invest them in this global effort that disregards and dehumanizes people in so many different ways, whether that's for political gain, or for private profit, or in many cases, both in the never ending cycle of destruction and violence. It's not a fun picture to paint, but it's the world that we're living in right now. And this ordinance says that in Medford, we're not going to put our public funds into that system. I have been grateful to meet with several residents, residents who have concerns, concerns about what the ordinance's intent is. I think there are some edits in here that better define what that is. I really appreciate meeting with the city administration, the treasurer collector, the chair of the commissioners of trust funds, especially also meeting with the retirement fund, even though retirement funds are excluded from this ordinance, they were able to do an analysis and provide a framework for how to look at funds and how they would apply under these conditions. And you can see that in the updated section 2698B. There's a very clear framework called the MSCI ESG, that's Environmental Social Governance, Controversies and Global Norms Methodology. That comes from the financial industry itself, which I know I and others have issues with, but it provides a clear framework for the implementation of this ordinance. They use data and create this methodology and framework to determine what companies are, for example, complicit in human rights violations. They take a number of global international law, international conventions and treaties to make those determinations. And they are a group that many folks who are thinking about how to invest their money look towards to make determinations about who is violating the basic norms and foundations of international law for profit. So I want to thank the folks from the Retirement Fund for pointing out this methodology. They did an analysis of their funds and most of these funds are for the Retirement Fund are not invested in any of these areas, not all. And I also just want to thank folks from the Retirement Fund as well for our meeting where they pointed out that while this ordinance wouldn't apply to them, there are a number of restrictions already in place in state law, particularly as relates to weapons manufacturers, where our retirement funds are not invested in that right now. And while this is what we can do here for the funds that law allows us to work with. I also am hopeful that the state will take some more action in the future to try to incorporate some of what we're doing here into the laws that apply to the retirement funds and other funds that are under control of the state. With that, I'm interested to hear from my fellow Councilors and I would move to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. I just want to address a few things. Councilor Rosario is right that this comes from community. One of the first things that I looked into and asked for with Councilor Morell five and a half years ago was what it would look like for our community. to divest from fossil fuels. And as we have seen efforts across the state, some more successful than others, certainly efforts nationally and internationally, I've heard from more residents about some of the egregious harms and industries that so many people are putting pressure on to change their behavior and to say that we're not going to be investing our public funds in. So I've talked to a lot of residents over a lot of years, heard from a lot of residents over many years about this. And when we saw the results of the last election, especially started to see within days, the stoking of hate, stoking of fear, stoking of violence, now being done in our name by our federal government, it became incredibly clear that we needed to fight back. And so that's why I've worked for the last eight months on this ordinance. I have had many discussions with Chief of Staff Nazarian, including last week, including this afternoon. Some things that are concerns in the email today were not concerns in the conversation on Friday. That's fine. But I share my colleague Councilor Scarpelli's frustration And, you know, I think something I've been trying to do lately is think about my approach. And, you know, I don't agree with everything Councilor Scarpelli says, but a lot of the things that were read in the email that he just read are questions that we had four months ago. They are issues that I have worked diligently in multiple meetings with multiple entities in the city to get to a clear definition to help them understand, you know, and quite frankly, many of the things in the email are maybe yes, maybe no, we don't know. And I understand that. I mean, they cite a mass general law that right in section 2699 says right here, subject to the provisions of general law, chapter 44, section 54 and 55 and the prudent investor act, right? That's because legal already reviewed it once and I incorporated their changes. We have an entire methodology in here that I discussed with the retirement system. I spoke with city staff for an hour. I spoke with folks for another hour last week. I've brought up on the phone, I've shared to make it very clear how to implement this. And to be honest, and I hope that people can feel some sort of clarity from this, from the analysis so far, it doesn't seem like much of our city funds are invested in any of these things. I think that's a good thing. And I think the reality that they should never be invested in the future is an important piece of this too. When we talk about how does it get implemented, and these are concerns, when I hear the same concerns for four months over four calls, over four months, over many calls, over multiple meetings, and they've remained maybe, maybe not concerns, and the answers aren't anywhere, and we never receive a document that actually says, here's the research we've done and here are the changes we want you to make. I think it's really hard to consider those concerns in any sort of real and substantive way. The way I left it with the chief of staff this afternoon was, this is a first reading, it'll be advertised, it'll come back for a third reading, send us a memo, With your legal suggestions, send us a memo with your policy suggestions, make sure they're two different memos because too often we get legal suggestions that are actually policy suggestions and we'll consider them. And I said this a month ago in the end of June. Part of moving forward is to set the clock running. If these are real concerns, and we need to do the review, then we need to do it in a timely way. And when the goalpost keeps getting moved. And the same concerns keep getting brought up, or we make some corrections and then they're not quite the right corrections and we need another one set of corrections. I think it's imperative that we advance the process forward so that the people who are raising those concerns give us them in a clear and coherent way that we can consider and then look at the ordinance language specifically. From my conversations, we addressed a lot of stuff here. The email can say what it wants. We're not talking about vendor contracts. We're talking about the investments of city funds in stocks and securities. That's what we're talking about. There's an entire methodology in here that makes it very plain and clear how to look at potential investments to address this. And for me, I think that the due diligence and the work done to this point is sufficient. So that's why I made my motion to approve for first reading. And I invite the administration to concretely frame its concerns with specific suggestions for ways that we could change language, if necessary, and consider this council could consider an advance of third reading. So I appreciate it. And yeah, I understand my fellow councillors concerns. It can be very difficult. The relationship between this council and the city administration has been difficult at many turns. I would say that I feel we've made a very coherent and honest effort to try to have a collaborative relationship. And it hasn't been easy. And it will continue, I expect to not be easy, but we'll continue to try. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And thank you to everyone who spoke tonight, shared their views very clearly. There are lots of folks who have lots of feelings and opinions about this. Many folks feeling very personally impacted by this. I wanted to first just try to talk to some of the questions that came up. I think I tracked them relatively well. When we talk about some of the specific language around the percentage of funds for the sections A and B versus C and D, interestingly, I think a piece of that actually relates to some comments made earlier, noting that there are companies that may well have a hand in some of these industries, but it is not the main thrust of what they do. Should it just say 0% maybe? You know, that might be my opinion. That was coming out of the Boston ordinance. When we talk about the Trump administration and its attacks on cities, towns, universities, groups, religious organizations, individuals, just the brutal, bullying and assault on the basic rule of law and integrity of a free and civil society. Medford is already in its crosshairs, whether for an action that we've taken or just for the fact that we're five miles outside of Boston. And he doesn't really care that much about collateral damage, as we've learned. Is any community prepared? Is any university, is any institution prepared for the iron fist of the President of the United States to come down on them? If I was to say yes, I don't think anyone would believe me. I think we've seen the harm that has happened and all of what he's done. But what folks said earlier is right. When a bully and a tyrant comes after you, you don't give in. Everyone who has given in has lost more and lost ground and made the next attack more likely. I think we are in a strong position. I think we're surrounded by communities who are standing up for immigrant rights, standing up for gender identity and the rights of people who have transgender people and people in the LGBTQ community and standing up for racial diversity and standing up against the erasure of history and I think we will be in a chorus of voices that stands up against targeted assaults on communities because they say we don't want to put our money in fossil fuels or we don't want to put our money in human rights violators. The last thing I want to talk about goes back to the MSCI screen. Gaston brought it up. I don't think it's a perfect tool. I think there's a reason why there's many, many sections and where one may not capture a company, the other does, right? This is interlinked and intersectional. These areas are essentially the main challenges to our basic human dignity and rights across the world, whether those are perpetrated by companies who are mainly in fossil fuels or companies remaining in private prisons or companies remaining in weapons. Something that I want to note about the MSCI methodology that's in here, and I think it kind of goes to the larger context of what we're talking about throughout this conversation, right? A lot of people feel that this text of this ordinance does something specific that they want it to do. They may well be right, but the whole point of international law and international institutions and global norms is that they apply to all of us, to all human beings. And if you look at this methodology, right, it's in here in 32B, we're talking about things as basic as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. the International Labor Organization Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention from the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearance. Every single thing that folks brought up tonight falls in here in some way. And this methodology identifies 31 vulnerable demographics. of 31 national civilians and refugees, ethnic, racial, and religious groups located in or originated from countries with ongoing international armed conflicts or military offensives. It mentions civilians and refugees in Georgia and South Ossetia. It mentions civilians, refugees in Belarus. It mentions the Uyghurs in China. It mentions people in Crimea. It mentions indigenous people in Colombia, civilians in the Congo, the Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. It mentions folks in Haiti and Honduras and Iran and Libya and Myanmar and the Philippines and South Sudan and Syria. And it mentions Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. And it mentions Israelis, mentions all of those groups. If there is a company that is spending its money to an investing and committing human rights violations against vulnerable demographics as identified by the international laws and norms that underlie the basic foundations of an international system and liberal order that tries to value and protect all human rights. It mentions all of those groups. So for the folks who say it targets one or the other or calls one group out, it's just not true. It's just not true. It's written in here. That's what this is about. This is about universal values. And universal values don't come without context. They don't come without the understanding of what's actually happening in the world. And a lot of people spoke very deeply and passionately tonight about the context that they feel is closest to them. There are facts. There are realities. There is a genocide going on in Gaza and in Sudan. And there is forced displacement in Ukraine. And there is forced labor and religious persecution in China. Those are things that are happening in this world. And this ordinance says we don't want to be a part of it. I'm going to finish just to say that I appreciate that we've had a difficult conversation. We've done it civilly. We've heard from a lot of people. We've done that a lot in this room. And I agree with the folks who say that it is not our responsibility to define divisiveness or quote unquote, not be divisive. To take a position like this is to simply say, we believe in a world order where human rights don't get violated, where our world is not burned, where the people where the human race has the ability to see a future that is more than 10 or 20 or 30 years out. And yes, maybe it's little old Medford making the argument, but hopefully more people will join us and a loud chorus will eventually drown out the people and organizations and wealthy elites, as David Harris said, who quite frankly are driving this world towards a global collapse. So I thank everyone who spoke. and I reiterate my motion to approve for first reading. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I hope that was written dryly enough to not come off as mean. This ordinance work that we've been doing on the zoning is essential to the future of our city where as written and as we've discussed extensively in this body for the six years that I've served on it, our zoning is broken. People don't like the outcomes of it. It both allows things we don't want and doesn't allow things we do want. And it significantly hampers our ability to grow and develop as a community. We spent years following the rescission of the mystic Avenue proposal in 2019, doing a planning process to develop the housing plan the climate plan and of course the city's comprehensive plan. we conducted a two year zoning recodification to create a modern ordinance structure that this council approved unanimously under the previous council. And for the last 18 months, we have been working under the contract and funding provided by the mayor to implement the city's plans through updates to the zoning ordinance as outlined in the comprehensive plans implementation table. I wrote and delivered a seven page comment letter on the draft comprehensive plan. So I can tell you that I have read through it intensely and I can tell you that there was a lot about needs for change in our zoning to address the many issues, whether that's affordable housing, nonconforming structures, zoning that doesn't allow for mixed use districts, that doesn't allow us to create vibrant corridors and commercial squares, all the things that so many folks have been talking about that hold back this community in so many ways. I think most eloquently and elegantly represented in the new bank that is opening in the outfitted, formerly outfitted restaurant in Medford Square, right? If we don't do something significant, that's going to keep happening. And this is what our comprehensive plan said, and this zoning has been working to change. The ordinance lays out very clearly what has happened over the last 18 months. I'm not going to get into the back and forth and the specifics. It's obvious that the mayor has a different narrative of what happened. I think that a lot more engagement and involvement and resources earlier on, I remember Council Vice President Collins, you send the communications last September trying to get the communication staff and team more involved in what we were doing would have helped. I do think that this, the zoning that we've proposed generally reflects both the comprehensive plan, the vision and the expert opinions of the planning team that we brought on board. And I do want to note that even in the absence of more resources and more direct engagement from the city administration, your efforts, Councilor Collins, did receive the praise and plaudits of the Mass Municipal Association, who highlighted our zoning website and communications plan this spring. But given that city government, even when we're talking about zoning, and even when we're talking about the city council, who does hold the primary responsibility for zoning, when other bodies of city government, the mayor, particularly, Um. Are calling for a different approach and a change in approach at this stage. I don't think that we can move ahead without listening to that, particularly given the mayor's letter last week, which indicated that she would not provide. Our body with consulting and resource I don't think that's particularly the best way to move forward because I don't think that ending the project at this stage was good for anyone. It leaves a lot of the broken zoning intact. Yes, there are great improvements with Green Score and the new Mystic Avenue corridor and Salem Street, like it's a start, but leaving it in this stage would be pretty awful and kind of a worst of both worlds situation. Saying all of that and having written this ordinance in response to my commitment from my address to the community earlier in July, I will say that I did meet with the mayor for nearly two hours yesterday. We, I think, disagree on how we got here, agree that if we knew now, like if a year ago we had known what we know now, we would have approached this differently. and agree that I think that there is a path ahead, basically along the framework that I outlined and also that the mayor had outlined. We kind of ended up in one of those situations, Newton and Leibniz, right? They both invented calculus at the same time. The mayor sent a letter and I made a speech about 24 hours apart that said largely the same thing, even though obviously there were significant disagreements in accountability and who's responsible for what happened. All of that being said, I think we had a good meeting yesterday. I feel confident that we can work through disagreements and differences that we may have, create an agreement and a framework to extend our contract with the INIS associates team and move ahead on this essential project. and move ahead also with the knowledge of how we want to do that collaboratively going forward. So I feel confident about that, but I also think it's essential that we transmit to the mayor a communication that outlines what has happened over the last 18 months and what needs to change in order for us to continue to be successful and complete this important project that is really the foundation of our growth and development and a better future for our city. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's just fundamentally true that it's hard to act in good faith and easy to act in bad faith. And it's hard to say we've learned that we should have done it better and it's easy to say, I told you so, or I trusted you too much, right? There are things that are hard and there are things that are easy. It's hard to say yes, it's easy to say no. And the city has said no a lot. City government said no to, we're not gonna update the zoning for, 30 years. No, we're not going to update the linkage fees for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix the sewer infrastructure for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix Menford Square for 30 years. No, we're not going to fix Mystic Ave for 30 years. And no, we're not going to fund the schools. And no, we're not going to maintain our buildings. And no, we're not going to build housing. And here we are, we're in the product of a city of no. It's a city in crisis, a city with decades of deferred maintenance, a city with no real plan and executed plan for growth, a city with out of date and broken institutions and structures. And, you know, if the city hadn't said no for 20, 30 years that I grew up here, I probably wouldn't have run for office. I want to live in a city that says yes. City that doesn't defer and delay and deny the essential and fundamental reality that we have to do something or else everything falls apart. As I said, it's easy to act in bad faith and it's hard to act in good faith. And fundamentally, when we wanna talk about the lie that this council didn't adopt the Salem Street recommendations, we adopted all but one. I think there were 12 recommendations and this council adopted 11. So 11 twelfths means we're not listening. It's a lie. When we talk about the RFP had the community meetings when the council voted unanimously to accept a proposal that didn't have the community meetings because we only got two proposals because there wasn't enough money. Unanimously voted for that, it's a lie. And it's a lie for political gain and I get it, it's politics, fine. It's easy to act in bad faith and it's hard to act in good faith. We'll see where it goes. If the mayor wants to end the zoning project, that's her prerogative. I think we're gonna get to a good outcome. I don't think we're gonna relitigate what doesn't need to be relitigated. And I think we're gonna move forward, hopefully now, with the resources we all see we need. The resources that weren't in the proposal that was unanimously accepted by the council, even though they were in the RFP, right? An RFP is a request for proposal. We didn't vote on the RFP, we voted on the proposal, we got back. And that proposal didn't have everything we wanted and asked for, because everything we wanted and asked for wasn't possible with $150,000 over 18 months. At the time, we accepted the contract and did our best with what we had. Pretty early on, there were different approaches. Councilor Scarpelli had one, Councilor Collins had another, I had another, Councilor Leming had another to try to fill the gaps. I thought we did a very good job of that. And up until really the end of June, when the mayor inserted herself in I think a not productive way, scaring people about what was happening and not presenting factual information and communications going out that didn't get looked at by any experts who were involved in the process. And then people coming and saying, look at all the horrible things that are happening. And none of them are actually in the zoning. That's what happened. Again, it's politics, right? It's politics. People are gonna say what they wanna say. Change is hard. It's easier to act in bad faith than it's hard to act in good faith. I think we're gonna get to an agreement. As I said, the mayor and I fundamentally disagree on the narrative of how we got here. But again, the political arguments being presented that no one was listened to and nothing ever happened and we knew this from the beginning and you did it on purpose, they are lies. they are actively lies. And the hypocrisy is so deep that when we voted unanimously to accept the proposal that didn't have the meetings that Councilor Schapiro mentions, then why did we vote to accept that proposal in the first place? Why wasn't this concern raised from day one? If we have the precognition and the forethought and the vision to have known that we would be where we were now then, I wish someone had spoken up. I didn't know. Well, you didn't, you voted for it, George. So you did.
[Zac Bears]: So, you know, important things can't just be delayed because we don't have the resources. That's what this city has done forever. And it's led us to where we are, which is so much work that we have to do. A council that in one term is trying to do the work of 20 terms before that didn't get done. I think the residents can see what's happening. I think they're very smart. If you look at what residents are seeing and saying, even residents who are coordinating the slow down residential zoning signs, I've had meetings with some of the people coordinating that who say, actually, we mostly agree on most of this and the process wasn't good. And the communications from the city really freaked me out. And thank you for saying what you said, because it addresses some of my concerns. It's not a response to people saying, I'm not going to vote for you anymore. Don't vote for me. Take that clip, put it out, right? I hope someone does it. you know, that's great. If you don't agree with me, don't vote for me. But I think residents by and large, see that we are working in good faith to do very difficult things that the city does not done in decades. And, you know, there will always be criticism, it will never be done perfectly, we will never agree on the outcome 100% behind this rail or the public at large. But I think most people can see that it wasn't intentionally, we never did this to push through a thing that nobody wants, right? If that was true, the overrides would have failed. If that was true, this council would never been elected. If that was true, we wouldn't see the results that we're seeing, which is that by and large, the city wants to move forward. And I'm confident that we will be able to work together with the mayor on this piece of that project and move forward in a positive way. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and this is what I'm talking about, right? I don't know, right? The idea that the information doesn't exist or it's not being communicated, and that's why everyone's being confused, is that's the falsehood, right, underlying the whole thing, right? The information does exist. People are being lied to.
[Zac Bears]: Which changes?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and I'll read to you what was made right now, because there's facts in the world and they literally exist on paper, regardless of if everyone, you know, if people want to say they ignored all the changes, and that's a political argument, a false statement, a lie, right? I'll read it to you. It's in the records that we approved in this body the following meeting that the clerk wrote. President Bears has declared this portion of the hearing closed at 1049 PM. Councilor Leming moved to accept the recommendations of the Community Development Board, except for the recommendation to go to MX1 at the intersection of Salem Street and Park Street. A yes vote would keep MX2 at the intersection of Park and Salem. Councilor Tseng second. Approved on a roll call vote and six in favor, zero opposed. Councilor Leming and Councilor Scarpelli absent, sorry. Councilor Leming moved to adopt the remainder of the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Councilor Callahan, second. Approved on a roll call vote of six in favor, zero opposed, and Councilor Scarpelli, absent. That's the records. That's the facts. That's what happened. It wasn't that everything was thrown out. It's not that the Community Development Board wasn't listened to. It's that God forbid this council, which is the final deciding authority on zoning, decided to adopt all but one of the recommendations. All but one, 11 out of 12, 95%, however you wanna phrase it, we listen to no one. They only listen to one group. They don't listen to everyone. They don't respect the process. 10 of the new candidates are gonna listen to everyone, but the seven, the other seven, they're not going to. I think anyone who's watching this can read exactly what's being said. If people aren't informed, or if people are repeating and regurgitating the idea that the CD board's recommendations for Salem Street didn't happen, it's in writing, or we could play the tape. As you always say, we could do it all. We did. We did listen to the community development board. They had a long list of recommendations. Councilor Leming said, I agree with all of them, but one, we should accept all of them, but one. And then the council voted to do that. Six in favor, one absent. No, there's no huge discrepancy.
[Zac Bears]: But I just want to be clear. My question was on the substance. What are we reopening? Are we reopening that one change? Or is the reopening because it's assumed that we didn't do any of the recommendations, right? And the mayor now putting that forward? That's the part I'm confused by. We accepted all but one of the changes. A false statement has been spread that none of the changes were accepted. I don't see a reason to reopen something that we actually already did. We listened to the Community Development Board. We agreed with everything they said except one thing.
[Zac Bears]: If the motion is that we request that the Office of Community Development state what was changed And what what recommendations of the community level board were adopted for Santa Street and which were not and put that out, I would second that it's in our records, but if they want to say it again, I mean that's fine but but my point being that this is, this is what's at issue here, like, I agree. This started to go off of the rails when communications started to go out that contained inaccurate information, particularly communications that came from the administration. Communications that didn't get reviewed by the council team leading the project, co-leading the project with the mayor's planning staff or with the zoning consultants. And that's because those decisions were political decisions. They were not decisions made in service of the project. They were decisions made in service of whatever fears or inaccurate information was driving the decision-making process. And like, this is the thing, right? Like, I think it's the reason that Kit got frustrated, Councilor Collins got frustrated, right? Up until May, we were not really aware that the mayor had issues with how the project was going, right? And I'm not gonna go inside the administration and say, who's doing a good job or not doing a good job. We were operating under the assumption that we were doing co-leading a project with the Planning Development Sustainability Office, which is part of the mayor's administration. I still to this day have not heard the mayor articulate a different vision for zoning than what has been put out or what is in the comprehensive plan. I still to this date haven't heard the mayor really take accountability and responsibility for the role in the process. It basically sounded to me like, and we heard it in what she said, she's like, my biggest weakness is I trust too much. That's basically the fundamental thing that's in the letter, right? And it's like, I trusted you guys to do the project, And so I wasn't really involved and then once I saw the results I got frustrated. And, you know, that's just not when kids saying for months we need more communications when kids literally writing the city website, which is the job of the communications team, like, and when that's what I'm saying like It was coming up in meetings very regularly that we wanna do more and we wanna be more engaged. And the person who holds the purse strings and the only person who can do an appropriation is the only person that can sign contracts. We're not getting the response from them. It's the strong mayor plan A system that we live in. And I just think it's a day late and a dollar short to be like, well, I trusted everybody and they let me down. We're doing our best with what you give us. So that's all I'm saying. If it's about getting the accurate information out, that's been my biggest issue for the last three months is that I think less than accurate to boldly and blatantly inaccurate information has gone out that has scared residents, that doesn't accurately reflect what the zoning proposals entail. So if we want to start with Salem Street and ask the Office of Community Development or Planning Development and Sustainability to issue a press release that says what was adopted and what wasn't from the Community Development Board, I'm in. So I'd be happy to include that as a B paper or an amendment, whatever.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to be a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And yeah, thank you, Danielle. I appreciate it. And I think like what you said, elucidates the point, right? Like we started the project with the resources we had to try to implement the full comprehensive plan. And, you know, we were like, here are the nine amendments and we're going to do these and knowing what we know now, we didn't expect some of these proposals to end up at two, three, four, five more public hearings than we had outlined in the timeline. Then they start to back up against each other. We started residential when we did, and maybe Danielle was right now looking at back in hindsight, but the flip side of that discussion internally was residential is going to be really big. We should start it early so we have more time. And I think we're now really getting into the nitty gritty of understanding how we got to where we're getting. And like I appreciate Danielle like I think the team, the team that's been working on this to bring things and try to get the scheduling of the planning and permitting committee and the Community Development Board and the council and all the public hearings across the nine proposed amendment categories, like we had honest disagreements internally. And, and, but honestly, We had some honest disagreements internally, we had a lot more general agreement. And we started to realize, especially we did the framework right, then we did Mystic and Greenscore, and then we did Salem. You can hear from what Danielle said and what I'm talking about, what Kit's been talking about in the mayor's letter, when it started to become clear that if the process was gonna go this direction, and then we can talk about the million different reasons why the process went that direction, and that's a more complicated conversation, how it got stretched out. We are where we are now, which is that we see how we got here, and more time makes sense because there were assumptions made at the beginning of the process that proved themselves to be untrue. And that's very different from, again, and I don't say this to bring up the point again, right? But like we acted in good faith to do a good thing. We found out that some of the assumptions we made weren't accurate. We tried to correct for them. And then the corrections weren't enough and we're correcting them for them more specifically because of the community development board's feedback that the public hearings are too much for them. That's the main thing driving the change. I think that's the main thing driving the change here. And then the mayor's role in that, she can choose to define it however she wants, but I've said my piece on that. That's just very different from the idea that we started it from the beginning, trying not to involve people because we wanted an outcome. That's all I'm saying.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. One of the recommendations of the Community Development Board was not to allow medical uses in the entire Salem Street corridor. And we accepted that. There's no medical uses allowed in the Salem Street corridor. Right, but it doesn't allow that was Right, it adopted a proposal so that you can't, it changed the medical use, like we did not adopt the medical piece of things. So you can't have the same proposal that went to the CD board last year. That wasn't even allowed. That's what I'm saying. I'm just saying we didn't reverse that recommendation. So anyone who's saying that we reversed that recommendation is not telling the truth.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not talking about the proposed clinic from last year. I'm saying that when it came to the zoning, one of the community development board's recommendations was to create only a neighborhood medical use that allowed very limited medical things to address potentially impactful medical uses like what you're talking about. People have said the council threw that away and took that away. We did not do that. That recommendation was adopted. So it just goes back to this larger point, right? People are, you know, incorrect information goes out there, it suits a narrative, it gets repeated, people believe it, and then it gets continued. It's a never ending cycle. It's not really worth our time at this point.
[Zac Bears]: I came in specifically to request that the Planning and Development and Sustainability Office issue a public statement about what CD board recommendations were accepted by the council, and they can refer to the March 11th council records, which I read earlier in this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: 25-124 offered by Councilor Callahan and Vice President Collins, Street Committee Ordinance. We did receive a communication from Kevin Foley, the city solicitor today, that he would like some time to review the removals section of this ordinance, removals of appointees. And Councilor Callahan's on here. We have a motion to table by Councilor Leming. Table to the next regular meeting by Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: He's absent. OK. President Bears. Yes. 5-0-2. 5 in the affirmative, 2 absent, motion passes. Vice President Collins. On the motion to take paper 25118, amendments to the personnel ordinance, civil project manager. and approved for third reading in city council july 15th approved for first reading advertised july 24th member transcript and summerville journal in city council august 5th eligible for third reading on the motion of vice president con seconded by seconded by councilor lazaro mr clerk please call the roll hang on
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion, sorry, five in the affirmative, four in the affirmative, one in the negative, two absent, the motion passes. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Hi, Danielle. Zach Bears. I'm the city council president here in Medford. He, him pronouns. And the restaurant question I've answered many times. I usually talk about Colleen's, but lately, and I still love Colleen's, I've been getting the Catania sandwich at Deep Cuts.
[Zac Bears]: Planning and Permitting Committee of the City Council.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we have been in Medford, you know, for the past several years going through some big conversations about the future of our city. what we want growth and development to look like, creating the city's first ever comprehensive plan, and, you know, for the past five years, and especially the last 18 months in this phase, working on a citywide rezoning effort, and been really excited to work on it. Last election, I talked about it a lot in my campaign. We've talked about it in probably over 40-45 council meetings this term, and one of the proposals for the residential districts here in the city, so a lot of our neighborhoods, that has been under discussion, especially over the last six months, and In May or so, the Community Development Board published some recommendations for changing the council's original proposal for the residential districts. And I think there was a lot of uproar and folks who felt that those recommended changes from the Community Development Board went further than they were comfortable with in terms of what could potentially be allowed in some of our neighborhoods. So we've seen really since May, A lot of discussion about that residential zoning proposal, not being something that residents some residents here want to see other residents are very supportive of it I think one of the reasons that the CD board made its recommendations is that there are a lot of residents talking about the need for more housing, because of the housing crisis that we're in. But I just felt that, especially over the last two months, the conversation that we were having was not as productive as it needs to be to get this work done well, and that there were a lot of folks who wanted the process to continue at the same pace it was continuing in, and I really respect that, but I think taking another five or six months and refocusing the conversation over the original proposal that the council put out was a better foundation for making sure that folks who had good faith questions and concerns and comments could be heard and that we had more time to get more resources from the mayor's office to help communicate this out a little bit better. So that's why I put it forward. I just felt that especially the community development board meeting in July that that that meeting just wasn't going to be, it was a reflection of a process that had become not productive towards achieving the goals that I think a lot of people in this community share about where we should go as a city in terms of development and growth.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, the first myth to bust is zoning can't make anyone do anything that they don't want to do with their property. So, you know, there will be single family homes here in Menford for forever, I would assume, as long as Menford exists. But, and, you know, there was not a proposal to end even the zoning to allow single family. So that's misinformation. And I think, you know, your point is really well taken. Zoning is complex. It is a law that affects a major part of development and growth, but it doesn't make the choices about how a community develops and grows by itself. individual people do that, what people want to do with the properties that they own, who they sell their properties to. We have a zoning code right now that doesn't hold developers to account nearly as much as it needs to. And, you know, I think just getting that point across is really important. There are certainly some folks in the city who don't support the comprehensive plan don't want to see change in our community. But I think the reality is changes happening no matter what. And we need to talk about and have a plan for and then implement that plan for. making sure that that change best fits what our goals are as a community. I think our comprehensive plan that was came out in 2023 that you know was, I was part of the steering committee but it, you know, as an effort of the mayor's office talks about how we need more growth for a lot of reasons. More affordable housing. more market rate housing to keep the pressure off of the existing housing that we have now, better mixed use corridors and squares, more walkable neighborhoods, a million things. And zoning is a piece of how we get to that future that we want to see. And I just have really felt that because zoning is complicated, it has been easy and too easy, especially because we haven't had the resources and collaboration on the city side to put out enough good communications with good information. It's been easy for people to kind of twist the zoning effort for their own political purposes. I don't think most people are doing that. Most people I've talked to. say this is complicated i want to understand it better or i generally support the vision of where we're going but i think there are some issues with the specifics a lot of people i've talked to have said um the city council proposal for residential zoning from march makes a lot more sense than the suggested recommended changes that came through the community development board in may so I think with a little more time and some more resources appropriated by the mayor's office, it will, and focusing the conversation around what the council actually proposed, not the kind of more density proposal from the community development board, doing all three of those things will really help us to have the conversation that we need to have as a community and get this done in a timely fashion. Because the other piece of this is that Medford in so many ways has not seen the action that it's needed to see over the last 30 and 40 years. Things have been allowed to stagnate and fall apart. And we don't want to be in a position where we need another override to prevent teacher layoffs. We want growth in a smart and significant way to let us also invest in our city services, our public schools, and make sure that the city can do what it needs to do to provide for its residents. So it's just so important that we get this done. And I felt it was essential that we don't allow the process to get in the way of the substance and let people, a small number of people who want to sabotage this, be able to say that the process wasn't good enough. That's what I'm hoping to see over the next year to 18 months is that we can complete and secure the progress of this project by updating our zoning ordinance and making sure that folks who have some concerns right now are able to voice those and we get a good product at the end of the process as well. Even if everyone's not going to agree, I think people most want to see that we've had voices heard that have good faith concerns.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So the way zoning works under the state law is in cities, the city council has the authority to amend zoning. In towns, it's town meeting, but we're a city, so it's a city council. And communities have these groups called planning boards. In Medford, our planning board is called the Community Development Board. And any zoning change goes to them so that they can review it, compare it to the city's plans. For example, our comprehensive plan, our climate plan, our housing plan, and some of our different plans for different parts of the city. And they can make recommendations back to the city council and say, you know, we reviewed your proposal and we recommend that you change it in this way. And then the city council can review those recommendations and it can adopt them or adopt some of them. And then the zoning ordinance becomes law. Right now, this process this rezoning project, which is in its kind of third phase, or at least second phase with the council. There are a number of proposals around zoning so. Um, it's not just 1 proposal around rezoning of the whole city. There's a residential districts proposal for residential neighborhoods. There are proposals for Medford square West Medford square. Some of our main commercial corridors. We already approved the mystic Avenue corridor and the Salem street corridor. And then there are some other proposals as well around parking, transportation management. We approved a new green score to make all new developments a lot more environmentally friendly. There's a private tree zoning ordinance that we're looking at to try to protect trees on private property when someone comes in to redevelop a property or expand a home. So there's a lot of different proposals. The main thing that has been the subject of a lot of debate And misinformation over the last couple of months is the residential districts. So proposals for a lot of our neighborhoods. That are not on our main drags main streets and avenues and squares.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, you know, people have said they want to put six story apartment buildings in the middle of single family neighborhoods. And, you know, they want to allow, you know, completely destroy and single family housing forever. And, you know, just a lot of things that are just completely not true. The main thing about the residential proposal from the council Is increasing the allowable what I call increment incremental density. So, um, saying if there's places right now that allow a 2 family. Can we allow for three family as long as they meet all of the other requirements, parking requirements setbacks, open space, something we're implementing for the first time ever is actually open space requirements for a lot of the residential neighborhoods right now and people I'm sure have seen it. Someone can come in by a house cut down every tree pave the entire lot. That's something that would never be allowed again under the new zoning if it were to pass. So one of the main things about the new zoning is, yes, say, can we allow a little bit more housing in each of our neighborhoods? And in some places, it's a little more significant than others because of some unique characteristics. This plan really is tailored to our neighborhoods and our neighborhoods are different. uh it's tailored you know there's some more increase around the new green line stations a little bit more change around the west menford commuter rail station um so you know it's not it is neighborhood specific and addressing you know the different characteristics uh but this whole concept of kind of squares corridors and neighborhoods that came out of the comprehensive plan um there's a map in the 2023 medford comprehensive plan that talks about this and that was the basis of About six to nine months of studies and analysis that we did, the Innes Associates zoning consultants team and zoning lawyers, they did a bunch of analysis from January 2024 to about September of 2024 based on the comprehensive plan and the climate plan and the housing plan to come up with proposals. essentially two proposals, a residential framework and a commercial framework. So what do our mixed use corridors and squares look like? And then what do our more residential neighborhoods look like? And that was the starting point for the zoning amendments that we've been working on for for about a year, plus the studies from last January to June. And then, of course, the four years of other planning and zoning conversations we were having before that.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think that's actually a really great example and the Fulton Heights is tough because of private ways and because of development on wetlands and because of the hills. So there's, you know, some concerns about doing quite as much there. I think we could do more, maybe a little bit than what was proposed, but some of the planners feel differently. But I think that's actually a really great example across the board of how zoning is broken right now. Right now, land is so valuable and the profit incentive is so strong that it makes sense for a developer to come in and whether it's subdivide a large lot and build two large single family homes or more, or even take down or renovate one single family home and make a 1,500-foot starter home into a 3,000-square-foot McMansion, right? Our zoning's incentivizing that right now. So we're getting really bad outcomes no matter what because of the profit incentive. And the idea of the zoning is to change those incentives, right? You know, the example you had in some parts of the city, it might be a little bit different right now in the Heights because of what I said, What we'd want to see is probably two somewhat more modest structures that maybe had two two two families, right? Because you could house more people. The units would be of a lower cost, right? If you, you know, if it was a two family and each unit was 750,000 versus a giant single family at 1.5 million, that's a lot more accessible. You know, it's not accessible for a lot of people, but it's a lot better than a million and a half dollar McMansion, right? So that's one of the big things the zoning is trying to say. Developers are already coming in, but our zoning is incentivizing some pretty bad outcomes. We also have a patchwork zoning where we want to hold, you know, we aren't holding developers to account right now, right? Like, this council is trying to update the development linkage fees for the first time in 35 years. to get developers to pay their fair share. We don't want this pave over thing. We need an open space minimum. We want to protect trees. And we want to say, if the land's already so valuable that the developers are going to do things and build new things anyway, how do we make those things as good as they can be for our community's goals? How can we say we'd rather have a two family or a three family with somewhat more affordable apartments or condos rather than a giant McMansion, right? It's not perfect. I have a lot of, you know, I don't think that the market is the only way or even entirely a way to solve the housing crisis, right? But right now, our city's land use and zoning policies are so out of whack that we're actually making things worse. So that's one of the big initiatives here. How do we get property owners, developers more accountable and have the growth that is going to happen no matter what be more targeted towards the goals that we want to see our community meet?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so there's a couple things there. One is a non-development, non-zoning related question at all, which is we have two elementary schools that are near capacity, one that's probably where it should be, and one that's under capacity. And the schools are working on a plan to address that. So there is space in our elementary schools right now. It's just not well distributed. And that needs to be fixed. That's not a zoning problem. This bigger question is around what does it mean if more people live here? And I think that's a real question. You know, one thing there's a lot of information on, Vice Chair of the School Committee Jenny Graham put out a good note on this around the Mass School Building Authority analysis for the new high school. You know, right now, because of demographics, we've seen declining enrollments here in Medford, you know, our high school was built in the 70s in the 60s for. 4,000 people. It has about 1,400 in it right now. So we've seen declining enrollments. One piece of that is demographic trends. Another piece of that is that all of the studies from the Metro Area Planning Council and other social science experts around housing, the Citizens Housing and Policy Alliance, they show that actually adding new housing alone doesn't mean more students in our schools. The thing that actually adds the most students in our schools is when we add more affordable housing because that's the biggest need. What we're seeing right now is, and it's one of the things that's driving this larger thing, declining household sizes. There's fewer people living in the same size structures. We used to have almost 70,000 people here in Medford. We're down to about 60 now. We actually had fewer houses at the time, and it's because there's a lot more one, two, three, four-person households, where in the past you used to have four, five, six, seven-person households. A lot of structures with four bedrooms and only two people living in them, right? Like these things have been really impactful. So building more affordable housing will have an impact. But the other thing is that there's going to be, as the new high school process moves forward, we were able to build in a little more assumption for some growth in there, and then also to move the entire pre-K system to the new high school, and that would free up space in our elementary schools as well. So realistically, you know, in the short term, the 5-, 10- to 15-year term, most of the data and studies that I've seen indicate that new residents and new housing is not going to be a driving factor in our school population. And, you know, if in 5, 10, and 15 years we're in a different position, then we have to start having a conversation about what it looks like to expand an elementary school or renovate one. And that's the conversations that cities and towns have all the time. This city, as is true of many of the things, made a very colossal mistake 25 years ago and sold off all of the old schools for a dime, not a dollar. And that was because we wanted to save some money back then, and it was penny wise and pound foolish. If the city still owned those properties today, we'd have a lot more ability to have conversations about a lot of things. about community centers, about youth centers, about after school, about expanding an elementary school, about pre-K programs, about recreation, about support for youth with disabilities. I mean, this is what we're trying to fix, right? We're trying to fix decades of neglect and missed opportunities and bad choices. That's going to continue to be the conversation we have as a city because it takes decades to correct the mistakes of decades past.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just really want to reiterate the importance of why we're doing this. We need a Medford that is growing in a smart and significant way. we have proposals before us that they're not the end, they're not the final product, but they are a really good foundation for having these conversations. And I think over the next few months, we're going to see a lot of good conversations, some disagreements, but especially I think being able to reach each other across some differences that we may have and better understand what's being proposed, make some of the tweaks and changes based on some folks, you know, questions and some things that need to be considered. And we're going to come out of this with a strong zoning ordinance that will set Medford up for success for the next 15 to 20 years. And I'm really excited about that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thanks, Danielle. And I mean, that's really why I gave the address that I gave. I think we've had a lot of good conversations and we need to, you know, I felt the need to step up and show some leadership because it's really important to get this done the right way.
[Zac Bears]: You can find it through Medford TV, Medford Community Media, and then also on my website, Zach Barris dot com.
[Zac Bears]: And if it's if folks prefer to read rather than to watch, I'd recommend going to ZachBears.com. The full remarks are there and and probably a shortcut link to a video too. So you don't have to watch the introduction to the meeting either.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: There we go.
[Zac Bears]: Gotta love a false start. Dear neighbors, I'm speaking with you today to talk about a shared path forward for Medford's, the project to update Medford zoning ordinance. From my first day as a candidate to this moment tonight as your City Council President, my firmly held belief in democracy has been the foundation of my service to this community. That belief is grounded in some fundamental principles. First, that representatives we elect should be transparent and have follow through. That they say what they'll do and then do what they said they'd do. that they are truthful about their values and positions and work hard to implement them and deliver results for residents. I believe that's what I've brought to this chamber at every meeting and what has been behind every decision I've made and every vote I've taken. Second, it's the essential duty of our elected leaders to grapple with complicated truths, to hold contrasting values and policies and opinions in balance, and make the best decisions possible for all of us and for our city's future. On many nights here in this room, nights both inspiring and difficult, we have done that together. When we serve in these offices, we sign up for the responsibility of making hard choices for the good of our shared community and our shared future. Third, we must recognize and respect that each of us is imperfect and each of us makes mistakes, and that leaders and communities can only make progress when they are transparent about their mistakes and learn from them. That's why tonight, I'm calling for a shared path forward on our rezoning effort that continues the updates to our commercial squares and quarter districts, while calling for an extended and even more robust public engagement process for the proposed residential districts and citywide off street parking requirements. I'm also calling on the city administration to provide more resources for outreach. to the community so that we can create a better opportunity to engage with residents, respond to good faith concerns and questions, and make it easier for more residents to understand and participate in this necessary process. As we approach Medford's 400th anniversary in 2030, I often find myself asking, what Medford do we want to build for future residents to celebrate on our 500th anniversary? while also preserving what has brought us to this point and acknowledging the history that has not been celebrated enough going back centuries before Medford's founding. Our community is at an inflection point. We are finally doing the long overdue work of implementing our first ever comprehensive plan for growth and development and addressing the decades of underfunding and revenue shortfalls that have left our city infrastructure and services in bad shape. We are facing a housing crisis where kids who grew up here can't afford to stay and working class people who wanna move here don't have many options. I believe in a future of Medford that says yes to addressing the housing affordability and cost of living crisis. A Medford that says yes to smart and significant new development that invites more vibrancy, walkability, new businesses, more open space, new places to gather and stronger community ties. A Medford that says yes, we can welcome more neighbors to live here alongside us and fight for environmental justice and open spaces and support our businesses and make our streets safer and better fund our public schools and city services. The rezoning process to implement our city's plans is one of the key tools to build the better future we want for our city. I'm so glad to see all the engagement from residents over the past 5 years to shape the city's planning documents and this rezoning process. I think the work product of the City Council and our Planning Department, in partnership with Innes Associates, is strong, aligned with the comprehensive plan that we crafted as a community, and sets the foundation for Medford to move in the right direction. In all of my discussions with and communications to residents, I've been clear that one of my top priorities is to transform our zoning ordinance to help build more housing, create more vibrant commercial squares, and focus on mixed-use development that activates corridors of our city with so much potential that have been ignored for too long. The mayor and previous City Councils have endorsed and signed off on this same vision and plan. Our current zoning is a flawed patchwork, and while we may disagree on some specifics, we know that it needs to be changed. Study after study and plan after plan has said this for decades, but the City has not acted until now because doing something is far more challenging than saying something. This city council has worked hard to make our city's vision and plans a reality over the past several years, starting with requests for funding for zoning updates before I was on this council. to the initiation of our first phase of this project from 2020 to 2022 by recodifying our zoning ordinance, to the planning processes between 2020 and 2024 to create the comprehensive plan, climate plan, and housing plan that incorporated input from thousands of residents and hundreds of public engagement events and approaches. Finally, to the past 18 months that the Council and Planning Department have been working with Innes Associates to create zoning proposals that concretely implement our city's plans. After more than five years, we are in the hardest phase of this project, and we must secure the progress we all know Medford needs by seeing this work through to completion. Since January 2024, the Council, Community Development Board and City staff have worked with the resources made available to us by the Mayor, and we have consistently and persistently advocated to the Mayor to engage more deeply in the process. provide more resources, and work to ensure that accurate information reaches as many residents as possible to get them involved in this rezoning project. Tonight, I'm calling for action in the loudest and most public way that I can. Over the past few weeks, I've been disappointed. Disappointed that so many residents feel that we haven't done enough to engage them in the process. Disappointed that we've created an opportunity to allow for an information vacuum that has led to the spread of misinformation and mistrust in this effort. Disappointed that we haven't received enough resources to try to make this complicated information more accessible, and more than anything, disappointed that good people coming to the table in good faith who support change overall feel alienated by the citywide conversation and process. Each of us deserves better. Medford's future demands better. As I said earlier, the job of elected leaders is to grapple with complicated truths and to deliver results that balance the many goals and needs of our community and our residents. And yes, a citywide rezoning effort contains many complicated truths. It is true that we need to build more housing and that we won't solve the housing crisis through new zoning and new private housing alone. It is true that we need more market rate housing to push down the pressure of limited supply that is skyrocketing rents and home prices. And it is true that we need to ensure that developers provide significant community benefits to improve our streets, sewers and city services. And that we ask the state for more local powers to protect residents from displacement. It is true that we need to better protect our open spaces and trees and still allow new projects to be built. It is true that our city's history has been built by vibrant, racially diverse communities, and that a part of our history includes exclusionary zoning and housing laws and other policies that cemented racial and class divisions in and between our neighborhoods. It is true that we must make an even greater effort to preserve our history and historic buildings, and that we must not completely defer to the decisions of the past in ways that prevent progress, change, and growth. It's true that we must make Medford more walkable, bikeable, and accessible to our elders and people with disabilities, and that we must encourage development and policies that make public transportation a more realistic choice for residents, and that we must do that in a way that reflects the reality that cars are going to continue to be the main way most people travel. It is true that we are just one city in a region facing a housing and transportation crisis that we can't solve alone. and that we can advance policies that make us a regional leader and a model that other communities can follow to join us and solve these bigger problems together. The zoning proposals advanced over the last 18 months are an honest, detailed, and bold effort to balance all of those complicated truths I just stated and many others that have been discussed extensively in the hundreds of public meetings the city has held and the thousands of public comments residents have shared. Finally, I wanna return to the principle that we can only accomplish big things when our leaders are transparent about their mistakes and learn from them. It was a mistake that I did not speak up earlier and more loudly to get the mayor to commit more funding and resources to this project. I should not have accepted that an 18 month contract was the best we could get and that we should try to keep our promises to the voters and accomplish this project in that timeframe. I regret that I did not share more publicly the efforts we have implemented to extend this process and hear from more residents. I wish that I had lifted up the work of my colleagues who have done so much to try to improve the communications effort for this project with limited resources available by asking for more time, more resources, and more funding sooner. That's why tonight I'm outlining this shared path forward so we can accomplish what we set out to do more than five years ago, to adopt a zoning ordinance that we believe will build the future of our city, that we want the future residents to celebrate on Medford's 500th anniversary in 2130. The rezoning process must be streamlined so residents can clearly understand what is being considered. First, I call on my fellow Councilors Community Development Board and our planning team to prioritize completing the proposed commercial framework and focus on our work on the remaining proposed districts for Medford Square, West Medford Square, the other corridors and the Tufts Institutional Zone this year. Second, I call on my fellow councilors and the Community Development Board and the planning team to extend the process for reviewing the proposed residential districts, ADUs, and updates to off-street parking requirements through spring of 2026. I ask the Community Development Board to continue its process to deliberate on a new set of recommendations regarding the residential districts in August and hold public hearings on their updated recommendations as well as any off-street parking proposals in September, October, and November before sending any final recommendations to the Council. In advance of the Council's receipt of the Community Development Board's recommendations, I propose that the Council adopt a schedule for additional public hearings in January and February of next year before scheduling any final votes no earlier than March 2026 and to allow for additional time through May 2026 if it is requested by the Community Development Board. 3rd and most importantly, I call on the mayor to allocate the necessary resources from our city's reserve funds to provide the council community development board planning team and city staff with the support needed to conduct even more robust public outreach over the next year. Specifically, I call on the mayor to place an appropriation paper before the council by September that one provides at least $150,000 in total funds, including any funds currently appropriated in the fiscal 26 budget to extend our contract with the NES associates team through December of 2026 and to a paper that provides an additional $50,000 in funds to pay for communications to residents that are reviewed and approved by the consensus of all branches of the city leading this project. The mayor's office, city council and planning department that will help inform residents about the proposals and what opportunities they will have to make their voices heard and share their comments with the community development board and the city council. I will formalize this proposal in a resolution to be placed on the Council's August 5th regular meeting agenda. I want to end my remarks tonight with my thanks to the Medford community for their passion for our beloved city. I am heartened and inspired by the vast majority of our community that considers these solutions to Medford's big challenges with diligence, intelligence, and grace. We make much more progress when we listen to each other thoughtfully clearly state our values and goals, and work collaboratively to accomplish great things together. At the end of this process, we will not all agree on the outcome. The final zoning ordinance will be the product of a continued great debate, of clashing opinions, of complicated truths, and of balance and compromise. I am humbled to place my trust in the democratic process so many have fought to establish for us, and that we must fight to safeguard for future generations. I have great hope for Medford's future, and I remain deeply honored by the trust you've placed in me to help lead our community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I have some more context on this. Council President Bears, thank you. I just want to avoid the echo as best as I can. Yeah, so we can't institute an institutional master plan right now. We've been filing a home rule petition with Somerville for several years to try to get an institutional master plan for Tufts. We don't have the ability to do that right now. We want one. Tufts opposes it and opposes the bill. It has died every session. And the mayor and the council have been working. I think we filed a new home rule petition. We may have filed one earlier this year, I'd have to go back and look at the records, but we've done it at least three times since I've been on the Council, and they are resistant to that. So that's why Somerville doesn't have one either. The Somerville zoning and for Tufts, their institutional district, I think that was helpful. I think it could be a model that we want to use. We definitely, I think I want an institutional master plan for Tufts University, but they have opposed it at every turn. And when we've brought it up, Tufts has sent their representatives to explain why they don't want it. But given how many other communities have it and the Boston plan system, I really think it's an important tool for us to continue to advocate for. And I think it speaks also to the larger element of this process where there are the things we can do in zoning, and then there are the things we want the state to allow us to do from a home rule perspective that they don't allow us to do. And, you know, that's one of the complicated truths that I was talking about earlier tonight, right? What do we do now with the power we have now, and what do we need to get more power to do that the state doesn't let us do so. Yeah, it's, it's something that I know all of the legislators in our district file for both cities every year and I think we actually file essentially the same petition.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, I appreciate the research on the Somerville proposal, all these other districts. I know the institutional master plan is a tough thing that can't be our main way of doing this, but I think hopefully it can be something we add to the table over time if the legislature will let us do it. I'm wondering, given all of your research, what thoughts you had on at least a framework for what this zone could look like and kind of the direction that your analysis suggests would allow us to meet the requirements of the law and try to hold Tufts accountable in a more robust way.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I'm gonna be putting it all out as best I can online.
[Zac Bears]: It was a long story, long remarks, but no, what I said was that we need to streamline the process. So there should be, we've been talking about the commercial framework, so our squares and our corridors and this Tufts institutional zoning. And then we've had a lot of conversations about residential and accessory units and parking. And I think it needs to be really clear There's two things we're talking about left, the commercial framework, so squares, corridors and tufts, the residential and the ADUs and the parking. Every meeting should just be on one of those two things. We shouldn't have them mixed together. And we should continue on the commercial side of things this year. Matt, could you shut off the public mic for a second? just getting feedback. And that microphone is outside the speakers, which is why it creates feedback. So the commercial stuff we should work on this year, and the residential we should extend the discussions into next year, next spring, with no votes before March in the city council. So sure, it could be a different council, they may decide a different path. But that was kind of what I'm recommending to try to bring folks together, have more discussion. I also am asking for the mayor to provide more funding and resources to communicate more things out to residents and let them know when things are happening. So I think that if we do that, residents will better understand what we're doing, have more time to engage, and we can make sure that we can get information out to folks that they can understand.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're trying. One of the reasons that I asked for more funding is that if we're going to do more work, we need to provide more resources so that we can have the people to do that work. It's important.
[Zac Bears]: She's currently the only candidate who's pulled papers.
[Zac Bears]: City Council is 50.
[Zac Bears]: End of July? I don't have the exact date in front of me.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 13th regular meeting July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records, 25119 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that we offer our deepest and sincerest condolences to the family of Brian Deeb Hilliard, a fixture in our community for almost 30 years. Brian was a uniquely talented trumpet player who turned his musical skills into a successful music booking agency, occasional brass and strings. We offer our sympathies to Brian's wife, Stacey, his children, Duncan and Owen, his extended family, and his many friends. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. It looks like we do have one comment from a member of the public. I recognize Bill Giglio, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, could we have your name and address for the record please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further comments either in person or on Zoom on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll call the roll and then we'll take a moment of silence. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion passes. Please rise if you're able for a moment of silence. Paper 25112 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council recognize the Tufts University Government and Community Relations Team comprised of Medford's own Rocco DiRico, Liza Perry, Leah Boudreau, Maggie Carroll, and Aaron Braddock for being honored with receipt of the Tufts University Distinction Award recognizing their exceptional accomplishments. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion by members of the council on the motion? Is there a second? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and then a negative, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of June 24th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees 25109 offered by Council President Bears, Committee of the Whole, June 24th, 2025, report to follow. On June 24th, we held a committee of the whole meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss proposed litigation settlements and potentially enter executive session to discuss those settlements. We did read the mayor's request to enter executive session to consider the matter of Aleesha Nunley Benjamin versus the city of Medford. We reconvene in open session and adjourned. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I'll get to it, I already called the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to paper table, papers 25103, that is proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, other quarters districts for referral to the community development board. 25105, that's the local investments ordinance proposal. And to take paper 25118 out of order, that's the amendment to the personnel ordinance civil project manager. Is there a second on the motion? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have public participation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motions by Councilor Collins, seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative one in the negative. The motion passes papers 25 one Oh three and 25 one Oh five are tabled to the next regular meeting paper two five one one eight dear President Bears and city councilors I respectfully request and recommend that the city council approved the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel article to entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formerly included as article to section 66 dash three one to 66 dash four zero. by adopting the following change. Amendment A, the language of Non-Union Public Works, NPW, shall be amended to include the following position. Civil Project Manager, respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Looks like we have the City Engineer. Do we have the Chief of Staff? I don't see the Chief of Staff, so you're on, Owen.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions for the city engineer from members of the council? Seeing none. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Yes, for first reading. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Hearings, public hearing, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, chapter 94, Medford Square and West Medford Square districts to be continued to a date certain. Whereas we haven't received any recommendations from the Community Development Board on these proposed ordinances, we need to continue the hearing to a date certain. So I'm going to open the hearing and then we can hear a motion. The hearing is open. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to continue the public hearing to the September 9th regular meeting, seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, so many affirmative, none the negative. The public hearing is continued to September 9 2025 petitions presentations and similar papers to 5120 petition for a class to auto license obese auto service and collision LLC. Dear Clark Herbies, in close for filing, please find petitioner's application for a new class two auto dealer used car license, used car sales license, including the application in the city council. Notice of petition to the building commissioner, notice of petition to the fire chief, affidavit as to tax filings, DOR letter of compliance, workers' compensation insurance, affidavit, business certificate, evidence of surety bond. signed Kathleen Desmond representing OBE's Auto Service Inclusion LLC. I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli, Chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Science.
[Zac Bears]: If the petitioner could provide a brief synopsis of the proposal. One second, Kathy. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other questions from members of the council? No. Seeing none, we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60, and 90 day review, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to approve as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and then the negative, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take public participation. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes public participation. Greg Collins, July 10 2025 to the Honorable City Council, the undersigned respectfully request for tree removal. I am a homeowner in Medford since 2016. I'm currently in the process of building a new home on Walcott Street. Unfortunately, I need to remove a tree located on a public sidewalk in order to have a functioning driveway. I follow the protocols with the tree warden DPW, and they have ignored my rightful due process to have a public hearing in order to remove the tree petitioner's name Greg Collins residents 41 Fulton Street 77 Walcott Street, Greg. You have the floor, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli. And then I did receive an email from the DPW commissioner on this matter that I can read.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So thanks for being here tonight. Appreciate your petition. As you probably know, considering you've been going through this for a few months, the public shade tree and the public hearings are governed by mass general law. And the council doesn't have a role in them. But of course, you know, we do hear from folks in this space about many things that are going on in the city. I'm going to read this response. It is not My, uh, it's not coming from me. It's coming from the DPW commissioner. He wrote me after the agenda went out. Good morning, President Bears. I wanted to bring to your attention information regarding the issue with Mr. Greg Collins and the public tree that is on your agenda for next week. Mr. Collins has not granted a permit from the tree warden to remove a public shade tree. He would like a hearing. However, hearings are required when a permit is issued to remove or take down a public shade tree. Despite his claims, the tree warden has been responsive to him. It is also worth noting that the building project began prior to the proponent receiving plan approval at the engineering division for elements such as the ROW curb cut. Unfortunately, the desired driveway for the project would eliminate a tree. The proponent asked to remove the tree, and the tree warden said no, denying the permission. Typically, site plans are approved at the engineering division prior to building, and especially if there are new curb cut locations. Mr. Collins is now represented by an attorney, and the communication has moved from the DPW to the city solicitor. I hope this helps. Regards, Tim. I can recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate your time coming down and Councilor Scarpelli as well for your offer. Continuing in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you'll have three minutes. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. We will alternate between the podium and Zoom. Hi there. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add with your additional time?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you for speaking. Is there any councilors who'd like to say anything at this time? Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, and I will communicate to the superintendent that we heard from you tonight and ask for a response.
[Zac Bears]: We're still in public participation. If you'd like to speak in public participation, you can come to the podium or make a line behind the podium and raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, so there are three active zoning amendment proposals currently under consideration. One is the residential districts and ADUs. That was referred to the Community Development Board in, I want to say March, and they've had several public hearings on it. Their last public hearing was last week, and they're having another one in early August. for the residential and ADU proposals. And I believe the comment deadline for the written comment is July 23rd. That's the deadline that they have set for written comments. And I believe they have said that on August 5th, they will be deliberating, but they won't be hearing public comment. And they will be directing the planning consultant to draft a new set of recommendations. Once that's done, they're going to hold further public hearings in September and October before referring recommendations back to the Council. That's on the residential and the accessory dwelling units proposal. The proposal that was on our agenda tonight that was delayed till September is a public hearing on Medford Square and West Medford Square zoning. the CD board had a meeting on that proposal, I think the last week of June and maybe discussed it further last week and they have to continue to hold public hearings before making recommendations to the council. We can't take action until we receive recommendations from the community development board or the community development board chooses not to make a recommendation. So that's why we had to delay the public hearing. We don't have recommendations, so we can't take action. The third proposal is the proposal for what's called other corridors that consists of Broadway, Boston Avenue, High Street, Harvard Street, and Main Street, various kind of mixed-use lots on those streets. And the CD board has requested that we hold off on referring that to them until at least our August 5th meeting, so that was tabled.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see a Maria on zoom Maria I'll go to you name and address for the record and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The investments ordinance is tabled to the next regular meeting on August 5th.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on zoom will stay at the podium name and address for the record please give three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Micah Kesselman on Zoom. Micah, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Yeah. Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Thought I saw a hand on Zoom, but it's gone down, so I'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We will go to Zachary Chertok on Zoom. Zachary, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm gonna go to Maria on Zoom, and then I'll come back to the podium, and then we can go to people who've already spoken once. Maria, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Maria, I'm asking you to unmute. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We have David Lifter. David, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom. I see PBB on Zoom. I'll unmute you and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, we can't hear you. Let me request an unmute again.
[Zac Bears]: There you go. Name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll return to the podium, but I want to get folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet, Sharon. So I'm going to go, sorry, did you speak during public participation? on the zoning? No, you didn't Melanie. So we'll take you first. Thank you. Yeah, no, I know you hadn't spoken yet. Give me one second to reset the timer. And then for anyone who's already had a chance to speak, we'll come back around to you for one more minute if you'd like. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, seeing no new hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium for folks who haven't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Judy, just if I could for one second. I've been trying to meet with you through the administration for several months, and I didn't get connected.
[Zac Bears]: I spoke with Judy today, Judy Johnston, and we're going to set up a meeting with you to talk about something.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak in public participation? going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. You've raised your hands at the same well, period at the same time. Going to go to Meryl Pearlson, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to the podium for anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We're gonna go back to Zoom. We have been near Germanus. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet who would like to speak either in person or on Zoom? I see Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes, and then we'll go back to... One second, Andy. I gotta turn on your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone who has not spoken yet in the chamber who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Josh Eckart Lee on Zoom. Josh, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. I'm going to stay on Zoom unless there's anyone who hasn't spoken yet who'd like to speak in person. Seeing none, I'm going to go to Dina on Zoom. Dina, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone in person who'd like to speak for a second time for a minute? And I see two hands of people who've already spoken as well. So we'll go to the podium. You'll have one more minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go back to Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. I'm going to go to Micah on Zoom. Micah, you'll have one minute. One second, I just have to reset the timer. Requesting you to unmute, name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: going to go back to the podium and name and address for the record. You'll have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You haven't spoken yet, so you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone in the chamber who would like to speak on public participation who hasn't spoken yet?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who has not spoken yet who would like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to go back to Zoom to Maria. Maria, you'll have one minute. I'm going to request you unmute. Name and address for the record, please. Maria, are you there?
[Zac Bears]: After everyone's had a chance to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to Munir Germanis. For one minute, Muneer, name and address for the record, and I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. RM, I'm gonna need to ask you to either message me on the chat with your name or change your initials to a name on Zoom. We've had Zoom bombing incidents and I'm not gonna unmute anyone unless they share their name on Zoom. All right, thank you. Thank you for doing that. I'm gonna go to Patricia Brady-Doherty for one minute. Patricia, name and address for the record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Rich, I'm gonna come to you. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. going to go to Anna on Zoom. Anna, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone either in person or on Zoom who has or has not spoken who would like to speak? Yes, you have one minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Seeing no further, would you like to speak, Andy? Yes. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks, everyone. I appreciate the comments that we heard tonight. I have had a number of conversations over the last couple of weeks with people who have questions and concerns about the ordinance. I'm still working to reach out to everybody who has emailed me or otherwise tried to contact me about it. The reason there are no edits in the version that was on the agenda tonight is that I did not have control over the process. This was tabled from last meeting, using a council procedural rule that required it to come up again at this meeting, I am planning to propose amendments to the ordinance and I am planning to communicate with many of the people who have spoken tonight about the content of the ordinance, I don't think that we will all completely agree on everything that ever happens in this chamber, but I am working to have conversations to address the concerns that have been raised tonight, concerns that have been raised to me outside of this meeting, so that we can create a product that reflects what I think are shared values in this community, and also respects and listens to, I think, the very real fears that people have shared with me in person, in this meeting, and in other places. I would ask folks to look at what I said at our last meeting. I gave two what I think We're very honest and direct remarks about why I propose this ordinance and my feelings about the comments that were shared at the last meeting. And I do want to apologize to folks that we haven't had the chance to meet or talk yet or that the edits weren't made yet, but there will be changes. And we're going to work through this to create a product that, and an ordinance that addresses as many concerns as we can. So I just wanted to say that, but I wanted to give everyone a chance to speak before I did. I'm going to recognize Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of the vice president to revert to the regular order of business seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative the motion passes and we revert to the regular order of business to 5113 offered by Councilor Scarpelli resolve the city council get an update from the health department for rodent issues in the Wellington Glenwood neighborhoods, Middlesex Avenue area Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Scarpelli, is that a motion to refer this paper to Committee of the Whole and invite the Health Department and Pest Control and the administration? Mr. Clerk, when you have the motion, please let me know. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry. Councilor Lazzaro, before we call the roll. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: The councilor just has a question through the chair to Councilor Scarpelli about your conversations with the health department. Sorry, I got to turn on your microphone. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 25114 offered by Councilor Callahan and President Bears whereas as part of its 2024 2025 governing agenda and previous resolutions the council has stated its intention to implement the good landlord tax credit in order to help keep rents affordable and support landlords who offer below market rental rates and whereas the state law enabling the good landlord tax credit s 1795 specifically limits the quote qualified residential rental property to any unsubsidized two to four unit residential rental property And whereas the reason the council has not yet adopted this provision of state law is because of an analysis by the assessing department that stated that the tax credit would not be limited to small two to four unit rental properties, and this would provide a significant unintended benefit to corporate owners of large properties and impact the city's property tax levy. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we request that the city solicitor provide a written legal opinion on whether the local adoption of the Good Landlord Tax Credit could be limited to two to four unit properties and provide both the City Council and the Chief Assessor with said opinion and be it further resolved that we request that the Chief Assessor provide the City Council with the potential impact of a Medford Good Landlord Tax Credit on the city's property tax levy based on the opinion provided by the city solicitor. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lameing. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Saing. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing no one in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, on the motion of Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to approve and send to the administration.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Paper 25-115, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, requests for four food truck permits for Medford Square Festays at the Clippership Pop-Up Park in August. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully submit to the City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food safety requirements. Business name, Bono Appetite. Date and time, August 2, 2025, 1 to 5 p.m. Location, Clippership Pop-Up, 75 Riverside Drive, Medford, MA. Event, Medford Square Fest, Brews, Bites, and Beats. About the event, family-friendly with free music, a beer tent, and food. We have for August 9th, at the same time and for the same purpose, Crop Circle Pizza. For August 16th, Bob Cheese Pierogies. And for August 23rd, Bon Appetit Again. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have, I think, Nick Belytheau here to talk about it. Nick, I'm going to recognize you if you want to talk about the event.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Nick. I appreciate that. Any comments or questions by members of the council? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25116 submitted by Mayor Briena Lungo-Koehn, CPA appropriation request, Medford Armory Emergency Facade Restoration. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, requesting the appropriation of $37,280 from the CPA Historic Preservation Reserve to the Fonzie Condominium Trust to provide funding for emergency facade restoration repairs. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. Community Preservation Act Manager Teresa Dupont and representatives from the Fonzie County Minimum Trust will be in attendance to address the Council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will recognize Teresa Dupont, CPA Manager.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager Dupont. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any other comment from members of the public on this? Seeing Mr. Fiori, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I mean, my understanding is this an appropriation, so the money would go directly to them. I don't know if you want to add some information.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. One second. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have any other questions for Councilor Tala and for Manager Dupont?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I just got you two confused. I don't know how. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Ronnie Dangerfield.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. I just do what the clerk tells me.
[Zac Bears]: Paper 25117 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, donation acceptance. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 donated by the Boston Proud Corp in honor of Pride Month and for pride-related activities. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative, through the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I almost did it.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole July 15 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Second floor, Medford City Hall 85, George B. Hassett Drive, Medford M.A., and via Zoom. Action and discussion items, 19-070, offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan, Tree Committee Ordinance. We have a copy of the Tree Committee Ordinance before us tonight that has been reviewed by city staff and councilors and residents. involved in Trees Medford for our discussion and I will recognize Councilor Callaghan. Should be good.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you want to review the ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Council have any questions on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions from members of the council on the duties of the tree committee? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further questions on the duties of the tree committee before we continue with the rest of the ordinance? Seeing none, Councilor Lohan. Oh, sorry. Councilor Leming got in under the wire. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilwoman, could you share your screen? do we work from the version that's in the agenda?
[Zac Bears]: If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would that be sufficient for us to look at, see on the screen? I'm sorry. If Councilor Leming shared the copy that's in the agenda, would we be able to?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lamee. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan. I don't know what's going on here today. Here, try it now. Nothing. Take Justin's for a second. There's something up with the mics. This is so strange. Blinking green.
[Zac Bears]: What would your motion be?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Council Member, if you could stop sharing screen. We have members of the public would like to comment on this draft ordinance either in person or on zoom income to the podium or raise your hand on zoom, we'll go to the podium, and then we'll go to zoom. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure. Sorry, it's just one second. Councilor Callahan, we invited the DPW Commissioner. Do you know, I'm not seeing him on zoom do you know if he's going to join us at some point tonight or did he communicate with you. Okay. All right, go back to Tom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Sarah on Zoom. Sarah, name and address for the record, please. Oh, you're going to need to unmute, Sarah. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sarah. We have Jeremy, Jeremy Martin. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment at this time before I turn it back to Councilor Callahan? seeing no hands on zoom and no one in the chamber. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Could you email the amended language to me and the clerk, please? Do you have any further amendments?
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan to adjust the appointment section in the following ways to require Medford residency except for the possibility of two youth members and to appoint one third of initial members for three years, one third for two years and one third for one year. Do you have discussion on the motion? And is there a second on the motion? Is there a second? Councilor Leming seconds and has discussion. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: either Councilor Callahan or Councilor Leming, I think it'd be helpful if we could read an amended version of section A. 2A, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Did you just read the full?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: So section 2A would read, the committee shall consist of between 5 and 10 Medford residents, one appointment made by City Council and all additional appointments made by the Mayor subject to confirmation by the Medford City Council. If possible, two youth members shall be between the ages of 15 and 22 at the time of their appointment. Residency is not required for youth members as long as they are enrolled at an educational institution based in Medford. Section C would be updated to, 2C would read, upon formation of the member tree committee, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of three years, one third of members shall be appointed for a term of two years, and one third of the members shall be appointed for a term of one year, and then would add a section 2D that reads, tree committee members may be removed only for cause by a two-thirds vote of the committee, including for unexcused absences that exceed 25% of the number of meetings of the committee held within a 12-month period. And that's a motion to amend by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? By members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the public on the amendment or the ordinance proposal? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands on zoom. We'll take a vote on the amendment, Mr. Clerk when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the amendment is the ordinance draft as amended. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the amended ordinance draft and refer to the City Council's regular meeting by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Any further motion? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, then the negative, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7pm for our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: We have Shane or Kevin. We have Shane.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee. The whole of June 24th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I see Councilor Tseng on zoom president bears present six present one absent the meeting is called to order, there'll be a meeting in the Medford city council committee of the whole at 6pm and city council chamber second floor Medford city hall at five George P has to drive Medford me and via zoom. Action and discussion items 25 109 submitted by Mayor Brianna lingo current executive session litigation settlements votes may be taken dear President Bears and members of the city council. I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body and or executive session pursuant to general law chapter 30 a section 21, a three to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Aleesha Nunley Benjamin versus the city of Medford. I also recommend that the council's agenda state in the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Lindsay Gill from Peabody and Arnold will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lugo Kern, Mayor. Is there a motion to enter executive session pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A.3? So moved by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, and a note that votes may be taken. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It is General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. We will enter executive session and we will return after that. We're going to reconvene. Someone's on the air. All right. Is there a motion on the motion to adjourn by Council let me second by. Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We'll reconvene at 7 p.m. for our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: City Council 12th regular meeting June 24 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears, present six present one absent the meeting is called to order please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25-100 offered by Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Whereas the Medford City Council has learned with deep sadness of the passing of Richard Caraviello, a proud lifelong resident of Medford who passed away June 3rd, 2025 at the age of 93. And whereas Richard Caraviello was a devoted son of the late Salvatore and Maria Contrada Caraviello and a beloved husband to the late Angela Moscoe Caraviello, and the late Mildred Tarifo, and whereas Richard honorably served his country in the United States Army during the Korean War, and has continued to serve his community as the longtime proprietor of Salvi Sportwear, a business known for quality women's clothing and family values. And whereas Richard was a devoted father to Richard Caraviello and his wife, Carol, a proud grandfather to Richard and his wife, Lisa, Lauren and her husband, Joey Mangello, and Nicole and her husband, Stephen Gaudet, and a cherished great-grandfather to Gianna, Joey, Richie, Nicholas, Juliana, Isabella, James, and Michael. And whereas Richard was a dear brother of the late Fred, Salvatore, Junie, Frank, Smokey, Tina, Clara, and Armand Caraviello, and is lovingly remembered by many nieces and nephews, extended family members, and friends. and whereas Richard Caraviello will be remembered as a man of deep faith, strong family values, humble service, and unwavering pride in his Medford roots, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincerest condolences to the Caraviello family and expresses its heartfelt appreciation for the life, service, and legacy of Richard Caraviello, and be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the records of the Medford City Council and a suitably engrossed copy be presented to the Caraviello family as a lasting expression of sympathy and gratitude. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I served with Rick for four years and I know how much he devoted to this city and also to his family and that he was doing both at a difficult moment. And so I know that this loss is very significant for him and his large family and for all the people in this community who knew Richard Caraviello. And I wanna send my condolences once again to Rick and Carol and his entire family. on the loss of their data. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. You can please rise for a moment of silence. 25101 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council thank and congratulate Karen Breen on her retirement after 25 years as a school nurse at multiple Medford schools, but most recently the McGlynn Elementary and Middle School. Karen has taken care of so many of our children with love and compassion over these years, and we recognize and salute you for your dedication. Enjoy your retirement. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We'll go three for three. Nurse Breen was also my school nurse at some point, although I can't actually remember which school. And in addition to congratulating her on retirement, I want to thank her and her family for giving her and her service to the city of Medford for all this time. And I hope that she gets to enjoy her retirement with them as well. Is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of June 10th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins, I understand you've reviewed them in Councilor Callahan's absence.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the records by Vice President Collins, seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Shane, can you check the volume levels? And sorry, we're going to be fighting with the AC, which also it's pretty hot in here, but we're going to do our best.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee, July 27th, 2025, sorry, July 11th, 20, June 11th, 2025. Report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes. Hearings, 25036 petition to amend a special permit 282 Mystic Ave. Do we have a representative of Clear Channel or the owners of 282 Mystic Ave with us tonight, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none and seeing as how we have not received the legal opinion we requested from the city legal department, I'm going to reopen the public hearing to continue to a date certain. Public hearing is open. Is there a motion to continue? On the motion to continue by Vice President Collins to our July 15th meeting. Thank you. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, 1 absent. Motion passes. Public hearing is closed and continued until July 15th. 25-044 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 residential districts to be continued to a date certain. This is the residential district proposal currently under review by the community development board. The community development board has put out a schedule where they will be considering this amendment over the next several months. And we'll be taking a vote on this amendment in October. And I encourage residents to engage with the community development board through this process to make your feelings known about the residential district's zoning proposal. I'm gonna reopen the public hearing so we can move to continue to a date certain. Public hearing is open, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to continue to the October 21st, 2025 regular meeting, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Public hearing is continued to Tuesday, October 21st, 2025. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 2409, sorry, 25, 25097, petition for a class two slash four auto license, Asbury, BMB, LLC, DBA, Herb Chambers, certified pre-owned Medford. Legal Notice, City of Medford. Pursuant to Medford City Ordinance, Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 14-462, Asbury BMB LLC, DBA Herb Chambers Certified Pre-Owned Medford, located at 60 Mystic Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, hereby provides notice of its intent to apply for a Class 2 dealer and Class 4 repair license in Medford, Massachusetts. The subject property is presently owned by Herb Chambers, 1172 Inc., DBA Herb Chambers, BMW of Medford, and is already authorized to operate as an automobile dealer and repair shop by the local authorities. The subject property is being sold to the applicant, Asbury B&B LLC, DBA, Herb Chambers, certified pre-owned Medford. These license applications will go before the city council for a public hearing on June 24th, 2025, 7 p.m. at Medford City Hall, second floor, Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, 85 George Behasa Drive, Medford, MA, 02155. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the city clerk's office at 781-393 2425. Welcome. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll go to you for presentation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: One second.
[Zac Bears]: Could you provide your name and address?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the council about this paper and petition? Just one for me. Sure. You said it's going to be operating under the same name. Is it going to be operating, is Herb Chambers still going to be operating the facility?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. Do you have any knowledge if that's part of a larger, we have several properties that he owns in the city, is that sort of a new strategy or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak in favor in opposition or otherwise speak on this paper. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Yes. Yes. So anyone else who'd like to speak on this petition, please come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. 25 099 petition for a class one slash four auto license ma g retail holding CJ dr mlc DBA McGovern Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram of Medford. Legal Notice City of Medford, pursuant to Medford Ordinance Chapter 14, Article 6, Section 14-462, MAG Retail Holdings, CJDRM, LLC, McGovern, CJDR, Boston, 29 Mystic Ave, hereby provides notice of intent to apply for a Class 1 dealer license in Medford, Massachusetts. The subject property is presently owned by Graba Realty Trust, 29 Mystic Avenue, Medford MA 02155, and is already authorized to operate as an automobile dealer by the local authorities. The subject property is being sold to the applicant, MAG Real Estate Holdings, Medford LLC, MAG Retail Holdings, CJDRM, LLC, McGovern, CJDR, Boston will be the tenant. These license applications will go before the Medford City Council for a public hearing on June 24, 2025, 7 p.m. at Medford City Hall, second floor, Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA 02155. applicant mag retail holding CJDRM LLC, McGovern CJDR of Boston. If there are any questions, please read out to the Medford City Clerk's Office at 781-393-2425. Do we have a representative? Great. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we'll come to you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you'd like to give the first presentation, we'll move to the front.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none from members of the council, I do have just a question or two. Can you apply with fewer acronyms next time? I'm sorry? Your name has a lot of acronyms in it.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And in terms of the ownership, it says that there's a different the properties being sold to one company and then there's a tenant, could you explain that a relationship.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, in Medford in Medford Yes. Okay. I would just note. Certainly in that area, we have a new zoning, the Mystic Avenue corridor district, and we're trying to shift away from auto-related uses in the area. Understood.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And is the Grava family group selling all of their properties?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone in favor in opposition or who would otherwise like to comment on this license. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Are you in favor of the license?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak either in person or on Zoom? In person, please feel free to approach the podium. On Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? I have a motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry about that. Thank you. 25-102, petition for amendment to a common victor's license, Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC. Let me find this in the packet real quick. I know we have representatives here. To the Honorable City Council, Councilors, The undersigned respectfully request an amendment to our operating hours for our common vixlers license 5am to 7am Monday, 11pm to 12am. And these are the amended, I'm assuming you're not going to be closed from 7am to 11pm. So these are the additions. Okay, so you'd be open until midnight. Every night, and you would be open from five to 7am. And the brief explanation the petitioners are seeking to extend the morning hours of operation to 5am solely for the purpose of accepting deliveries of product and supplies to avoid congestion associated with deliveries during normal business hours of the plaza and the restaurant. In addition, the petitioners requesting an extension of the evening hours of operation from 11pm to 12am. The requested extension of hours of operation is consistent with the hours of operation of similarly situated restaurants, both within the Fellsway Plaza and the surrounding area. Business name, Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers. Business address, 519 Riverside Avenue, Manfred, Massachusetts, 02155. And we have the signature, Kathleen A. Desmond, Esquire, attorney for Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC. So I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll hear from you, Kathleen. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And just so everyone knows, Councilor Scarpelli is the chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Desmond. Do we have any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, I just had one question. You mentioned that a condition on trucks not idling would be amenable to the applicant? Yes. Great, so if someone could move that along with the 30-60 day, okay. All right, seeing no further discussion, members of the council, and we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60 day review of any complaints about deliveries and a condition that the trucks will not idle, delivery trucks will not idle. Does anyone from the public who would like to speak on this matter, either in person or on Zoom, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. Oh, sorry about that. We have a second from Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative when I have some emotion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: The motion is to spend the rules to paper 25093 and communications from the mayor by Vice President Collins. Second. Second of my councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: affirmative what happens in the motion passes two five zero nine three resolution to address issues on Quincy street. It resolved that the city council discuss issues on Quincy street in particular the rat infestation, street paving, stop signs at the intersection of Quincy street and Osgoode street. Uh Councilor Tseng and I know we do have Ann Driscoll here and this has been uh tabled a couple times so um just wanted to move on that. Councilor Tseng and then we'll go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to go to Anne at the podium. Anne, I think Councilor Tseng talked about a lot, but we have a three-minute limit, so I'm going to give you your full three minutes, and then you can have an additional minute after that. unless some but we have to let someone else speak for us if they want to, and then you can come back for another minute. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Anne. And as a neighbor, I'm on Auburn Street, I know. I'm right at the house at the bottom of the hill on North Street. So, you know, I don't know how people are going 45, 50 miles an hour and making that turn, but they are. So I'm really hoping we'll get some more safety and speed improvements in the area. Thanks. Is there anyone else would like to speak on this item from the public, either in person or on Zoom? Feel free to come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Any further discussion on this resolution by members of the public or by councillors? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins on the motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Thank you. Communications from the mayor 25106 appropriation of free cash submitted by brand new brand new current use of free cash to your president bears and city councilors are special request and recommend that your honorable body approved the appropriation of free cash the amount of $8,022,021.80 on the following items, $8,000,000 to the Capital Stabilization Fund, given the decades-long backlog of capital improvements needed by the city of Medford, partially outlined below, and $22,021.80 for washers, dryers and appurtenances, and a stove for the Fire Department. A balance of free cash before this vote is $20,023,923.94. As our honorable body knows, there is a long list of needs by the city, including but not limited to the below matters for which we'll be starting the complete review and planning this summer. The numbers shown are estimates and this list does not include water and sewer infrastructure work that lies ahead. $200 million street and sidewalk repair backlog, $15 million for Freedom Way, $4 million for Oak Grove design and construction, $3 million for equipment and vehicles, $3 million for accounting software, $1.5 million for City Hall ADA bathroom renovations, $1 million for Hagner Center, $125,000 for dive equipment, an unknown amount for City Hall HVAC costs, which, as we're all experiencing now, is much needed. respectfully submitted Brianna Lingo, current mayor. I saw the chief of, there's the chief of staff. If there's anything you'd like to add, then we'll go to discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: You have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins. Oh, there you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion? The motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Move to public comment. We'll take public comment in person or on Zoom on this item for, we'll go, each person will have three minutes. If you'd like to comment on this item, you can come to the podium if you're in the chamber, or you can raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate between in-person and Zoom. Seeing no hands on Zoom and one person at the podium, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just wanted to clarify on that. The funding from question seven was used to hire permanent staff in the DPW. And these funds, these funds aren't, as you noted, aren't being appropriated to any specific project. They're being placed in the stabilization fund. under the archaic ways of our state law, money placed in the stabilization fund can be appropriated at any time. But free cash balance, which is essentially just a different reserve account, can only be appropriated after a free cash balance is certified by the State Department of Revenue. And that generally happens in March. So we wouldn't be able to access the funds until that. So for several months, if it stayed in free cash, but in the stabilization fund, if the administration comes up with the free cash plan or makes an appropriation request, we can consider that at any time during the fiscal year. So it's about putting our reserve funds in a place where they can be used instead of in the free cash account where they can't be used until the next certification next spring. So if it isn't moved, it means that the funds are not able to be used for the next nine months, even if there's a priority to use them. And yeah, I mean, We have massive needs. That was part of the discussion in the override campaign last year, but the road and sidewalk funding under question seven was used to hire staff who will be working for the city. And that's an ongoing expense and therefore requires ongoing funding. These dollars, what we've appropriated this year and what's potentially being proposed in the future would be for one time expenses. So that's the difference. I'll go to the podium. Since I see no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I do believe we have the fire chief who's raised his hand so I will take the fire chief on zoom. Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So that's the next paper. So we'll take it up on the next paper. I have Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to note, and I'll go to the chief of staff, but I don't, but what Commissioner McGivern said was there was a 20% increase in the budget staffing for the highway department. And then the appropriation that we approved in November, it was specifically to hire the highway crew. And what he said was, that because of this increase we will be able to have a crew using the new equipment that has been purchased as well out four days a week instead of two days per week so we would not be outsourcing sidewalk. That is what he said and I've talked to him about it about six times but I'll let the Chief of Staff continue on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in public participation who hasn't yet spoken? Seeing none, I will go to Mr. Merritt. You have another minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? There's a motion to approve. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Form the affirmative, two in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 25107 fiscal year 2025 year-end transfer submitted by Mayor Brian Olingo Kern. Dear President Perez and members of the members of the City Council, I respectfully and recommend that Your Honorable Boot Potty approve the following end of year transfer for fiscal 25, $500 legislative expenses to legislative salaries. $15,000 finance salaries to finance expenses. $40,000 assessor salaries to finance expenses. Negotiated salaries, 186,000 to workers' compensation, 186,000. Negotiated salaries, 225,000 to workers' compensation, 225,000. Police salaries, 78,000 to election salaries, 78,000. DPW highway expenses, 2,000 to elections expenses, 2,000. Police salaries, 175,000 to fire salaries, 175,000. DPW highway expenses 40,000 the fire expenses 40,000. Police salaries, 10,000. The PDS salaries, 10,000. DPW highway expenses, 175,000. To parking expenses, 175,000. Parks, DPW, 60,000. To electrical expenses, 60,000. DPW highway to facilities expenses, 10,000. DPW highway to building expenses, 40,000. Legal salaries to legal expenses, 115,000. Treasury salaries to human resources salaries, 20,000. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandon O'Kern, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff, I'll recognize you and I also know we have Finance Director Dickinson as well. So if you'd like him to speak, let me know and I will ask him to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you just to the point could you explain how there was a $500,000 allocation for the fiscal year for DPW, but then because of the union contract positions had to be made available within the union. So all of that had to happen. And then the positions, the three new positions have been advertised, but for most of this year, they were empty. Is that the explanation for why funds are being transferred from that budget?
[Zac Bears]: That's fine. I just wanted to go through the process of filling those positions. Do we have questions from the Council on the transfers? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments or questions by members of the council on this paper? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have a motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Seeing no further discussion by members of the Council, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this paper? Please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public comment on this item? Seeing none, on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. 25108 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, establishing transfer funds to Medford Public Schools Special Purpose Override Stabilization Fund. We've discussed this at several meetings. On November 5, Question 8 was approved for fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools in the amount of $4 million. Based on the outcome of negotiations with union partners, when negotiated payments will be due, The schools anticipate having a balance at the end of fiscal 25. We are requesting to segregate that balance in a special account to ensure the full amount of the override for fiscal 25 is available to MPS for contractual requirements in future years. The special account will be used solely for school purposes as outlined in question 8. In particular, Chapter 40, Section 5B of the General Law stipulates that cities and towns and districts may create one or more stabilization funds and appropriate any amount to the funds. Creation of a special purpose stabilization fund requires a two-thirds vote, and appropriation of monies into and out of the fund requires a majority vote. By taking this action, we will have a source of funding available to supplement the Medford Public Schools annual operating budget in the upcoming fiscal year and future fiscal years. We did receive a presentation from Noelle and Jerry from the finance department as well as the interim superintendent Suzanne Galusi at a previous meeting talking about the plan to use these funds over the next 3 years for the contractual obligations of the Medford public schools. I know the chief of staff was just working on making sure we got the legal language correct, and that's why it's on the agenda tonight instead of at our last meeting. So, you know, we've had quite a bit of discussion on this, but I am happy to hear from the chief of staff or our school department team who is here on Zoom before we move forward. Do you have any comments, Madam Chief of Staff?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And just to confirm, this is creating the special purpose override stabilization fund and transferring the sum of $2,185,000 from the balance remaining in the fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools budget. If the school team, I'm going to recognize our school department CFO. Noelle, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Velez. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll motion Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to comment on this item, either in person or on Zoom? You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. That's a good point. We need to take two votes on this. One to approve and establish the fund, and then one to make the transfer. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So we have a motion to establish the fund from vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Leming. Seeing no public comment, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, finding the affirmative, one of the negative, one absent, the motion passes and the fund is established. Do we have a motion to transfer the balance of $2,185,000 from the fiscal 25 Medford Public Schools budget to the fund? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Reverting to the regular order of business, 25-103 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Menford Zoning Ordinance, other quarters, districts, for referral to the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table to our next regular meeting on July 15th by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's not referred to table to table to July 15th.
[Zac Bears]: to Vice President Collins for the next two resolutions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I think the resolution really speaks for itself. We've seen yet another horrific decision from the United States Supreme Court to strip rights away from our neighbors and our friends and allow right-wing extremists to define the scope of what it means to get health care, regardless of what the medical establishment and doctors and nurses, nevermind what an individual person and their doctor determine is best for them. I think this is a disgraceful statement. I know there are a lot of people in this community who are afraid when we see these actions and decisions and laws being implemented. And I am grateful both for our local gender affirming care ordinance protections as well as our state law protections that Massachusetts is not a state that is going down this path, but with this Supreme Court, and with all of the states and all of the people in those states who are so horribly impacted. believe it's essential that we stand in solidarity with them and in just basic statement about the fact that an equal protection clause in our 14th Amendment means equal protection for everyone, regardless of what this court majority seems to think. That's why I put forward this resolution and why I asked for my colleagues' support. I move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. No, the next one. Sorry. It's fine. He's going to look it up and come back later.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I was going to make largely a similar point. I think the idea that there is a mutual exclusivity to this Council dealing with local, quote unquote, local issues versus quote unquote, not local issues is a false equivalence. It's not real. And anyone who's been sitting here for the last 2 hours knows that we've spent about 2 hours talking about stabilization funds and school override funds and potholes and, you know, it's not the most fun stuff, but it's what we do. And this is important too. So to do both doesn't come at the expense of either. And as Councilor Leming noted, not only is it a symbolic gesture per se, but it's a statement of values, and it's a reaffirmation of belonging. And that's important. And it doesn't come at the expense of our ability to do anything else that we do. I know way too much about potholes. Thank you, Madam President. And I would just amend to include also the Department of Homeland Security at all versus DVD at all decision. And I will. And I'll make sure that that amendment goes by email. That's the decision that allows the deportation to third countries. So it's a rough week from the Supreme Court so far, and I'm expecting more.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna withdraw the B paper. I'm going to submit a resolution for our July meeting after the completion of the term to review the remainder of the decisions that the Supreme Court may make, and then we can put forward a resolution that speaks fully to their impact.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to my fellow Councilors for your consideration tonight of the proposed Values Aligned Local Investments Ordinance. First, I want to ground this conversation in our shared humanity and shared values. When so many people at higher levels of government are pushing for war and private gain, it's our duty in local government to stand up for peace and the public good. It is irresponsible to invest our local public money in industries that profit from violence, harm, and inhumane treatment of human beings, whether that's the fossil fuel industry, weapons manufacturers, for-profit private prison operators, or companies complicit in human rights violations in far too many countries and against far too many people, especially children. This ordinance is grounded in common sense, shared values of peace, justice, and compassion for our fellow human beings. In this moment of warmongering, fearmongering, and rising right-wing extremism coming from the very top levels of our federal government and from so many other governments and dangerous groups around the world, it's more important than ever that we take a comprehensive approach to ensuring that, whenever possible under the law, our public dollars are invested in ways that contribute to the public good, not major forms of harm. While the financial impact may be limited, we are sending a strong message that Medford stands for peace and safety and against war and violence, both here at home and around the world. Second, I want to thank the city administration for communicating with me about this ordinance over the last several months and for the legal review and comments by the city's legal counsel that have been incorporated into this draft. The ordinance structure is very similar to the existing Boston ordinance. It would require city officials to review our city's investments to see if any funds are currently invested in these industries and make that information public. Then investments would be sold and when allowed by state law, it would be a priority to reinvest these funds in supportive efforts that directly benefit our local Medford or Massachusetts communities and businesses. Given state law and the current position of our state pension board, this ordinance would not apply to our city's retirement funds. This ordinance proposes conditions on investments in a number of harmful industries, including private prisons, fossil fuels, weapons manufacturing, and those contributing to severe violations of inalienable human rights like war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. This ordinance does not target or highlight any nation or conflict or company. That's intentional. It would apply to all instances of human rights violations across the world based on international humanitarian law and the work of international legal institutions that uphold international law. I'm confident that our city staff will apply this ordinance to all violators equally and without any fear or favor. As part of my work to draft this ordinance, I reached out to the city administration and Medford Retirement System for their comments. I did receive legal review and I invite city and retirement system staff to share any other questions or concerns about the ordinance before any future action by the city council for final passage and ordainment of this ordinance at third reading at a future council meeting. I look forward to further conversations and meetings with our city staff on this topic as I have offered in my messages over the past several months. Finally, I wanna thank Medford residents who have reached out to share their support or their concerns about this ordinance by email and those who are present tonight to speak during public comment. I look forward to more public input, scrutiny and discussion, and I'm happy to engage with anyone who has an interest in or concerns about this ordinance by email or scheduling a conversation. I've been heartened by the capacity of our Medford community to work through tough issues with respect and civility. While I know that not everyone agrees with this ordinance, I'm confident that we can have a powerful discussion tonight that voices real disagreements, holds space for real concerns that residents may have, and stays grounded in our shared values. Peace, justice, compassion, and staunch opposition to all forms of hate against our neighbors and all violent acts against our fellow human beings. In this moment of rising war, hate, violence, and death, Stoked by our federal government and right-wing extremists across the world, it is essential that communities stand up to oppose the use of our public funds to perpetuate violence and harm. This ordinance helps to fulfill that duty and imperative. Thank you again for your consideration, and I motion to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: I thought the Chief of Staff, if the Chief of Staff wants to answer any Councilor Scarpelli's questions first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I appreciate the Chief of Staff and Councilor Scarpelli for raising those points. I do want to note two things. First, there is an incredibly similar ordinance in structure and form in Boston that has been implemented under the existing state law. And the redline changes from KP law were incorporated into this draft. I want to note just on the timeline, I submitted this to the chief of staff and to Council on April 4th. I received with a note that I was intending to put this forward in April, late April or early May. That certainly would have given us the time for the meetings that Councilor Scarpelli is talking about. I received a response on April 7th that we're reviewing, I think April 19th that we're still reviewing, and then we got back comments the first week in May. With those comments, I then communicated with the Chief of Staff. my willingness to meet with the treasurer collector, with her, with any boards and commissions that were relevant. I also communicated directly to the chair of the retirement system. I didn't hear back from the chair of the retirement system and I You know, the Chief of Staff was working on setting up a meeting, a meeting was scheduled and then unscheduled and you know suddenly it's two months later. And at that point, I just think there's a fundamental question of doing things the right way and at the right pace. And, you know, I don't question that there may be language changes from a legal perspective. I'm sure we're going to hear from folks tonight that they would like to see language changes from other perspectives. Passage out of first reading does not preclude that. What it does do is it lights a fire under all of us to actually get the work done. So when I ask for the passage for first reading, that means now there's a clock that we have to keep to make those changes, to have those meetings and to get the work done. And given my experience over the last several months, just with the pace of this process, I feel like that's necessary at this time. So that's why I'm proposing it and that's why I'll be moving on it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Public participation under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so what that means is we're not going to be taking action tonight. The action will be postponed to a future date, but we have motion to take the public participation section of the meeting to allow the people who are here to say their piece, technically you can say Whatever you want about anything, I have a feeling I understand what the people here are going to be talking about. Each person will have three minutes, and I will take alternating from in person and on zoom. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Dennis on Zoom. Dennis, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record at the podium and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's no hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Let's stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for record you have three.
[Zac Bears]: It's ridiculous. I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have fought World War II.
[Zac Bears]: That was a reference to the fact that war is intent and inherent in our economic development. I don't think it was. Please, thank you. I'm running this meeting. I don't think it was an intended statement to say that World War II was not a righteous war. And quite frankly, I got a number of messages today from fascists. So thank you. No, I'm saying that I received messages in my inbox. Thank you. No, guys, guys, don't engage. I'm just saying, if we're going to talk about World War II, we're going to talk about the full scope of the communications that elected officials receive in this country. And I don't think anyone in this country or in this city or in this world wants anyone to be subject to violence. That is the exact opposite intent that I put forward with this resolution. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was, I had, I received recently a death wish. Thank you. Name and address for the record you have three minutes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Guys, let's not take the bait.
[Zac Bears]: Before we continue, I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll continue with public participation. There's no hands on Zoom. So we'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Micah.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no hands on zoom, we'll continue at the podium. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No hands on zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Stay at the podium. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So at the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna just pause there. We do have a resolution under suspension to consider on that topic later. We've had several meetings on the topic. I'm gonna quickly go to Councilor Lazzaro since she was mentioned and thank you for being here. And I think we're all deeply disturbed by what's been happening in this community and our targeting by federal agents. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Collins, are you good? All right, we'll go to the podium, or what do you want? Okay, great. We'll go back to, actually, I'm sorry, we do have a hand on Zoom. I'm gonna take the hand on Zoom, and then we'll come back to the podium. Lara Germanis, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further hands on Zoom, I will go back to the podium. Name and address, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have anyone who would like to speak who hasn't spoken on this topic? And Ellen, you did speak right at the beginning, right? Not on this one. All right, then we'll take Ellen, and then we'll go to anyone else who hasn't spoken yet. And then we'll come back around for one more minute for people who have already spoken, but Ellen, you have the floor name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. One second, we have somebody who hasn't spoken yet on Zoom. Meneer Jimenez, I'll recognize you, and you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have one more person on Zoom who has not spoken yet on this item. Go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please, and you will have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, anyone in person or on Zoom who has not spoken, who would like to speak? We'll take you, Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Is there anyone who has not spoken on this issue who would like to speak? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in person, we'll go back to the podium for one more minute each for anyone who has already spoken. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe the rest of the record, you have one minute and about 30 seconds left for that. You'll have one minute. And since I let my go over by 30 seconds, I'll go within 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpell. Thank you. I want to thank everyone for their input tonight. I know that a conversation about lack of neutrality, and support and opposition has been raised by everyone here. And I think what I'm about to say, I was about to say we'll probably please no one or at least displease everyone in some way. I want to be very clear, international law and international norms matter. While it may be impossible to find a standard that everyone can agree to, I firmly believe that the core values of our international order that World War II was fought to establish One, the right of all peoples to self-determination. Two, the integrity of internationally recognized borders of nations. Three, opposition to unilateral military action and the occupation of territory. Four, the inherent right of individuals to life and freedom must be the foundation of that standard. Any nation or company violates that standard, or quite frankly, any non-governmental, non-nation entity someone acting or a company supporting private efforts in any place. That must be the bar. And that is the standard I will continue to push for as this ordinance moves forward. No one is demonizing janitors or people who work every day just to survive here in Medford or abroad. When we say no kings, we say no to the billionaire CEOs, the 1% investors who profit most from the industry of death. As working people, our personal investments, if we have them, and our collective public investments, the investments of our communities, of our government, are our only method to influence the private market. I promise you that even if every city and town in Massachusetts chose not to invest in weapons manufacturers, the financial influence and capital flows of the military-industrial complex will remain well represented. What I didn't say in my introductory floor speech is that this issue is deeply personal to me. I know what it looks like to have friends and loved ones who are afraid for their safety and for their family's safety, both Jews and Palestinians, both in Palestine and Israel and right here at home. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Muslim. I'm not a Palestinian. I'm not Israeli. When I hear real concerns of anyone for their, excuse me, thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, you're out of order. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Can you please respect your fellow councilor, sir? You're not. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, we'll wait. We'll wait, sir. We'll wait, sir. We can wait for your tantrum to finish. Councilor Collins, please just, we'll wait for Councilor Scarpelli to respect the chair and the floor. Well, vote me out. Thank you. When I hear the real concerns of anyone in my community for their safety, I take it very seriously. What I cannot and will not accept is that it is polarizing or divisive to impose the investment of city funds and companies that violate international law and the basic standards of our liberal international order. I'm not anti-Israel. I'm not anti-Palestine. I'm not anti-defending democracy against legitimate threats. I support the right to free democratic states in Palestine and Israel. I am against the standard that says it is inherently anti-Israel or anti-Semitic to oppose the actions of the Netanyahu regime, or that it is anti-Chinese to support the actions of the Xi regime, or that it is anti-Hindu to support the actions of the Modi regime, or anti-Muslim that it is to support the actions of the bin Salman regime, or that it is anti-Korean to support the actions of the Kim regime, or that it is anti-Christian or anti-American to support the actions of the Trump regime. I am deeply concerned about the weaponization and accusations of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Christianism, anti-Hinduism, and other biases and hate to sifle free speech and legitimate opposition to the actions of governments. I fear that this undermines our efforts to identify and combat hate and hate crimes. And I especially fear that it condones or incites hate or hate crimes. I hold this fear for members of my family and my friends and my loved ones, some of whom are Jewish, some of whom are Muslim, some of whom are neither. I look forward to further discussions, and we may end up disagreeing at the end of those discussions. but I will also hold close the fears of people for their safety. I will work to address them while I also hold to my steadfast principle and commitment to international law that applies equally to all nations and all peoples. Consensus is never possible in a democracy. When we ask, how will we determine our shared values and what we stand for? The answer is simple, self-determination. by electing representatives to pass laws through the legislative process afforded to us by the Constitution of our country and our state, and replacing those elected officials when their actions do not reflect the will of the voters of their community. If this proposal or my values or my actions do not pass democratic or electoral muster, I will accept the result and I will be relieved that I live in a society where self-determination and freedom are at its foundation. Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? We have an ordinance for third reading. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take paper 25-090 off the table and approve for third reading, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. I'll take your comment. We have a motion. We'll take your comment on the after we took the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative one of the negative one option option promotion passes I'll recognize Councilor say, um, no, I'm all right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Then is there a motion by Council is our on the paper under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to take paper, it's actually renumbered 25110 under suspension, seconded by. This is the motion by Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Be it resolved to paper 25110, be it resolved that the Medford Police Department provide an after action report to the city council by the end of day on Thursday, June 26th on the recent ice arrests in West Medford over the weekend and weekly after report on all ice activity in Medford going forward to be due end of day Thursdays. I recognize Councilor Lazzaro, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by second. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council on this resolution? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, is there any public participation on this resolution? Yes, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Any motions on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Wait, second. Oh, what?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, I recognize Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Paula, for the presentation and everyone was at the Q&A who voiced their viewpoints on this. I just want to thank you for the framing and really understanding as we have throughout this zoning process, how much of our existing zoning comes from completely different views on urban planning and the way that cities should be run. The fact that our parking minimums essentially, except for the updates we made just three years ago, reflect a worst case scenario of everybody all the time using a car and the worst day of that ever possibly happening I think goes to show that even calling the minimums is not a good word to use even though it's the word we are stuck with. So I really appreciate that context. I think this is a thoughtful look at all of the options that we have as a community. Something that really struck me is that most cars are parked 23 out of the 24 hours of the day and devoting so much of our land use, our planning thought around car storage versus the spaces that people inhabit or go to on a regular basis and those things that actually build a vibrant community, I think, is something that we're going to be changing and I think that's a really good thing. So I appreciate this, I look forward to the proposals that will be developed based on our five-year now process with hundreds of public meetings and thousands of people to this point, as well as our comprehensive plan and our climate plan and our housing plan so it is the 28th meeting. That's my fault. 28th meeting on this project in this committee so I'm sorry for leaving that off but 28 from us and a few hundred more from everybody else and I think we're really getting down the road to building a community that's a lot more livable, safer, walkable, bikeable, and better for people who use cars as well. Which just includes me. I'm in my car all the time, so I'd like more options too. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: We're doing hard work and it should be acknowledged exactly correctly. So I'll try to remember next time. All good.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to confirm that areas outside of the district that's reflecting the map that was presented to the CD board, not the proposed changes that have been discussed at the city board. Is that right?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great. Thank you. So everything that's kind of not highlighted or a little bit later outside of the proposals for the district.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think the triple-decker three-unit makes a lot of sense in the mixed-use 1B as an allowed use. And I just wanted to chime in to kind of just rephrase what I think Paula and Kit, you have both said. The mixed-use districts allow residential only and allow mixed use. And so that's that's just important to note, right? You can build a three family, you know, or take a two family and turn it into a three family. And that may be something that we see quite a bit of, which I think makes sense. But I do appreciate the gradient here, right, that in the districts where there is more capacity allowed that that, you know, can't put a three family on the Elizabeth Grady building, right? Like, that doesn't make sense. That's why that the mixed use to be. So I think that's, that's a helpful note. And I appreciate that you had that highlighted as something we should talk about.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think we're really getting at the core of this whole conversation at this point, right? Zoning is a complex formula of what is in the base district, what are the dimensional requirements, what are the performance standards, and what are all of the other requirements, right? The building code, the city's stormwater regulations, state law that may be applicable, for example, for like ADUs, And, you know, we're talking about the tree ordinance as well, and the tree ordinance zoning amendment that would affect trees on private property and would increase the cost of removing existing trees, right? So what Paola said, I think is really important for everyone to remember about every district and every zoning proposal, right? Just because a district allows a certain number of units or a certain size of structure and says that the minimum lot area is something, most of the, basically almost always, the actual structure that can be built on that lot is going to be less tall with fewer units than what the district may allow at the maximum, because most of the lot are not, with the dimensional requirements, can't build those structures, right? So if we use things, it's a great, it ties right into the parking, right? The parking minimums were set as these maximums, which means we've completely limited all of these other possible types of construction and typologies in the neighborhoods we might want to have. If we use the lot area as maximums, or if we use the unit number as maximums, we limit all of the other things that we may want and may be possible. So people get concerned when they see the headline numbers. And zoning is the starting point of development and planning and what our neighborhoods look like. It's not the end point. So if we choose to be overly restrictive on these things that are the starting point, then the end point is going to be even smaller and we're not going to see the results that we want. And I think that's really the key principle to remember here. The vast majority of even new project, vast majority of properties aren't going to change. because the people who live there and own them don't want them to change. And the ones that do are not going to change to the maximum edge that they're going to change to because all of these other factors need to be factored in. So I think that's just really the core and essential principle of what we're doing here and what everyone in the public needs to understand. So I just wanted to say all of that to also add that from a environmental green space, open space, permeable surface, pervious surface standpoint, these proposals are significantly better than the existing zoning conditions, which allow people to pave over their entire lot with tar, you know, with asphalt. And that's a disaster for stormwater, for green space, for the look of our communities. I live 15 doors down from a corner lot that's completely paved over, and it's a completely different look than just a lot on the other side of the street that has some green space. So, yeah, from an environmental perspective, we are really focused on making the zoning more supportive of open space and green space and pervious surface because our zoning right now doesn't factor that. I mean, essentially our zoning right now says, let's build small houses where not a lot of people can live in them, where people can own as many cars as they may want, and we're going to store them, and we don't have any green space at all. And I think those are all three values that are not where we are as a community. I don't think it's actually where we've ever been as a community. But our zoning is anachronistic, it's out of date, and it doesn't serve our needs. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I had, since we're talking about dimensionals I had one question. It's kind of related to another thing, but I think it applies here. You know, at least applies if if there's. 80 years involved, um. The current, uh. Accessory structure, dimensional requirements. Are we proposing any changes to those. At this time.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything is pointing towards the existing 94 dash 4.3, which I actually think. Um, is a is a fine, uh. Section as it is, I was just wondering and checking if we were, um, I've gotten a couple of questions. If the new. principle structure dimensionals would apply to accessory structures and I said well it looks like the way that the you know proposed ordinance amendments are written it just points to the existing dimensionals for accessory structures and I just wanted to double check on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I would personally, I appreciate that answer and I would also think it might be useful to go through. Some of the dimensional requirements, and then the actually, maybe more of what I'm saying is the performance standards that are in. This document, I've noticed some updates to that, and I think it's really helpful for people to understand. Uh, how the performance standards, you know, impact what can be built on a lot. Um, I think we have a lot of really good performance standards in here, but, you know. They also go right back to that kind of core principle, which is that. you know, the district may say x is allowed on x lot of x size, but actually dimensional requirements and performance standards mean that what can actually be built is relatively significantly smaller and less dense.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to say the same thing as I was reading these earlier and looking at that question. Because the dimensional requirement for the principal structure is less restrictive than for the protected use ADU, that would not have been a correct decision to have made. But personally, I think it makes sense maybe for the local use historic structure, but also I think we could get into Yeah, that would be the case where I think it would make most sense to have the same protection for the protected use but that's just my two cents. I'm a little more, I think a little less gung-ho on the second local use ADU having exactly the same protections as the protected use ADU. That's just my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I think for me, just going through the performance standards changes would be helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was, I was talking about like the, I think, particularly the height step backs the light, the shadow the all of that.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to also note that pre existing non conforming structures and uses have additional protection, though. even if you are in a structure and you want to do work on it or make changes to it, there's a lot of changes that can be made even if the zoning says that there are other requirements. So that's just another factor that should go into people's minds as we discuss this as well. And it's the reason that we have a lot of businesses and districts that don't allow business right now, right? They were pre-existing uses before the zoning, the old zoning was passed. That's why there's so much non-conformity. Well, it's one reason that there's a lot of non-conforming structures and uses in places that the current zoning wouldn't allow new similar things to be built. And I also have a motion, but I can wait until after anyone else has comments or if there's public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I have motion to report the other corridors draft out of committee and keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: 11th regular meeting. Medford City Council is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of May 27th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Isn't that nice? A voice vote. Let's keep trying to do that. Reports of committees, 25039, Committee of the Whole, May 27th, 2025, report to follow. This was Committee of the Whole, chaired by myself. This was our final budget meeting. Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-033, offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, May 28th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 2403 for offered by Councilor Callahan public works and facilities committee June 3 2025 report to follow Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24073, 24354, and 25041 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, June 4th, report to follow Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, I'm going to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 2425094, I'm going to call the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there a motion on the motion to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee by Councilor Collins? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings, 25036, petition to amend special permit 282, Mystic Ave. Notice of a public hearing, City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The City of Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Howard F. Alderman Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, relative to an amendment requested by Clear Channel Outdoor On behalf of the property located at 282 Mystic Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, the petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit. petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the sign board located at the property and to ask for review and potential adjustment slash reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be reviewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council, signed Adam Herdevis, City Clerk. So we've been continuing this one for a while. Do we have a representative from the petitioner on Zoom or in person? Not seeing a hand raised. All right, I'll open the public hearing then we can move that. I'm going to open the public hearing. reopen the continued public hearing on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting seconded by seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes the public hearing is continued. 25 044 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance Chapter 94 residential districts. This is also been continued from our last meeting. We still do not have a recommendation from the Community Development Board, which is having their continued public hearing. I believe next week to the date on that on June 18th. So I will reopen the public hearing. We do not have a proposal to consider, so we need to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Public hearing is reopened. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to continue the public hearing to the June 24th regular meeting by Councilor Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Let's continue to June 24th. If we don't have a recommendation from the CD board, I will be sure to note that again in the agenda. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25082, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, 197 and 203 Fulton Street. Petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint-owned pole, 197 Fulton Street. There's a petition by Massachusetts Electrical Company and DBA National Grid for permission to remove and replace a joint-owned pole including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located between 197 and 203 Fulton Street and labeled 132 as depicted in the sketch. The engineering division recommends the city grant that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. Grant of location is limited to the removal and replacement of one joint-owned utility pole within the sidewalk between 197 and 203 Fulton Street. and labeled 132 as depicted on the sketch. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify Dig Safe and obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Placement of the joint-owned utility pole must provide at least 36-inch clearance to the accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations. Cement concrete sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of pole removal and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. The entire concrete panel will be required to be rebuilt. Temporary asphalt pavement can be used during interim conditions. However, the timing should not extend more than 30 days. Project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris. The Fulton Street is a narrow, heavily-traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail. Engineering Division recommends the applicant consult with Metro Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work, since work hours may be restricted outside of normal operations. At least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate about our communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. Do we have representative from National Grid on this for the light pole. You just provide your name and address and give us any more information on this project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Does the city engineer have anything to add? All right. I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or otherwise would like to comment on this grant of location. I'm assuming you are in favor. Yeah, great. We will note that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this grant of location for the light pole replacement? Councilor Callahan, do you have a question for the petitioner?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise has a comment? Seeing none in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, declaring the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Motion to approve with the conditions of the Engineering Division by Councilor Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none on the negative. The motion passes. 25083, petition for a grant of location, National Bridge, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint one pool, 574 Fulton Street, You are hereby notified by order of the Bedford City Council that the City Council hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at Bedford City Hall and via Zoom on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. on a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a joint own pole including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located at 574 Fulton Street. The City Engineer, Engineering Division recommends the spirit of location be approved with the following conditions. They are functionally the exact same conditions that I just read for the previous poll, so I'm just not going to do it again for everyone's sake. The only change is that temporary patch using bituminous concrete pavement will not be permitted, but the concrete sidewalk will be replaced. So that's the only difference as far as I can tell. I'm looking at Owen, and I'm getting a thumbs up, so I read it right. Do you have anything to add on, or just if you could let us know a little bit more about this?
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions for the petitioner, for members of the council? Seeing none, I'm gonna open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or who otherwise has a comment on this grant application. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor? Yes. Great. Is there anyone else, either in person or on Zoom, who would like to speak in this public hearing? I do see a hand raised on Zoom. I'm going to recognize Joe DiCostantopoulo. Give me one second. So I'm going to ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Please provide your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you. Could you answer the question about the transformer and the impact on the road?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you for coming and thank you for registering your opinion as part of the public hearing. And thank you to our representative from National Food for answering some questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, have a good night. Are there any further comments on this grant of location as part of the public hearing? Seeing none, is there a motion? Oh, sorry. I'm closing the public hearing. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve with the conditions of the engineering division by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25084, petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed joint on pole 287 Main Street and Frederick Ave. You are hereby notified by order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the council chambers at Medford City Hall on Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. On a petition by Massachusetts electrical company DBA national grid for permission to install a joint on full including necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures located at 574 Fulton Street. It'd be where oh. that's a misprint. 287 Main Street sorry about that. Wherefore, it prays that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, be granted a location and permission to install two joint-loan pole and two five-inch conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity at 287 Main Street and Frederick Avenue, Medford, Massachusetts. The Engineering Division received a joint-loan pole petition from National Grid that includes two additional joint-loan poles near 287 Main Street at Frederick Avenue, dated March 12, 2024. The Engineering Division recommends this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. The grant of location is limited to the one additional joint-owned utility pole located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 287 Main Street at Frederick Avenue and labeled P2698-1 and one additional joint-owned utility pole located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 271 Main Street labeled P2698-50 as depicted on the sketch. The contractor shall notify DigSafe and obtain all applicable permits. No other structure shall be impacted. Placement must provide at least 36 inch clearance of the accessible travel path and the placement must not be located in the wheelchair ramp. The concrete restoration shall be done at the time of installation in consultation with the engineering division regarding the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. Temporary patching using concrete pavement will not be permitted. And the project site must be swept after the installation or daily and kept free of debris. There's going to be a police detail and there's going to be 72 hour notice so that the Director of Communications can coordinate with National Grid on a better communications. The engineering division also recommends the grain of location for the five inch conduits. It's limited to two additional conduits within the cement concrete sidewalk. Digsafe notification, no impact on other structures. Placement is within an accessible ramp in accordance with ADA regulations. The reconstruction of the wheelchair ramp and the reciprocal ramps located across Main Street and Frederick Avenue, three total, must also be completed. The city can provide engineering design plans for this reconstruction work. Cement concrete sidewalk restoration will be done at the time of installation, and concrete sidewalk damage will be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at control joints. Temporary concrete patching will not be permitted. Site will be swept daily or after installation. Police detail will be required and there'll be a 72-hour notice. Approved, City Engineer. Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. City Engineer? Seeing none, I do have a letter. Well, I'll let the petitioner speak to it and then I'll open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for the petitioner or members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Are you in favor? Yes. Great. We also received a letter. Dear Mr. her to be made to an end 2025 I'm writing in regard to the petition for a grant of location to five zero eight four, please let it be known to the city council and other responsible parties that this exact location at the corner of Frederick Avenue and Main Street. was dedicated as Rapallo Corner by Mayor McGlynn in 2010. The Rapallo Corner sign is currently displayed at that location. Ceremony was covered by the Boston Globe on November 10, 2011, and also local papers wish to ensure that the Rapallo Corner sign is not removed, or if it be necessary, prominently displayed on the same corner. The Rapallo family was brought up at 12 Frederick Avenue, the closest one to the corner. They and their descendants lived there for most of the last century. Sal and Anna had seven sons and two daughters. Four of the sons fought in different branches of the military during World War II. My mother, Elizabeth Rapallo, Camerata, now 103 years old, along with her parents, saw each of their brothers off from this corner many years ago. We would be grateful if you pass this information along to the city councilors, National Grid, and other associated entities in the project for their review. We would hope that this honor will be preserved for years to come. We would ask that this item be included on the agenda. Please contact me if you need additional information. Please send the sketch referenced in the notice to this email. Respectfully, Stephen Camerata, graduate, Medford High School, 1967. And I won't read the contact information. Is this going to, it's not, the city engineer's indicating this isn't going to affect the sign at the street sign? Great, so that will be all set. Do we have any other comments from members of the public on this public hearing regarding the polls at 587 Main Street? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Do we have a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the two grants of location with the conditions from the Engineering Division, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. That would be affirmative. None the negative. The motion passes. Thank you very much. I apologize that you will never be able to figure out exactly when you're going to need to be here or be able to leave. We got you out early tonight, but you were here, I don't know what, till 11 last time? You were keeping track. Thank you. All right. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25088 offered by Council is RO, whereas Immigration and Customs Enforcement has engaged in operations in Medford, and whereas ICE notifies the Medford Police Department when they will be engaged in operations in Medford, and whereas the Medford Police Department is obligated to the residents of Medford to protect their rights and to enforce laws, and whereas it may be a risk to Medford police officers to disclose ICE operations before they happen, be it resolved by the city council that the chief of police deliver a report of ICE operations in Medford after the fact on a monthly basis. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callihan, do you have any further comments from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Leming and Councilor, oh, I think it's actually Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to note that Captain Camino is chairing a traffic commission meeting tonight. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Do we have anything else from members of the council? I'm just going to give my very short two cents, which is I think that in these extraordinary times, we sometimes have to call on people to do more than the minimum and You know, when we have people obviously and flagrantly violating the constitution and the laws of our country, we have to ask what our response looks like. That goes beyond just what we've done in the past. I'm gonna go to public participation. We have two hands on Zoom. It looks like we have some people lining up at the podium. And then I also have a comment to read in, which I'll do after everyone has spoken. We'll start at the podium. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You're on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your intent. Thank you, Sharon. One second, Andy. Andy Castagnetti. Your hand's raised on Zoom, but you're here. I'll take you in person. Okay, thanks. Then I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp on Zoom. Steve, name and address for the record, please. I'm going to let you start your video and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just on that point, you know, we can, this is a request for additional reporting beyond what's required by the ordinance. So if someone wants to propose an ordinance amendment to go further, and just as one Councilor who voted for the welcoming city ordinance, we did vote on that before this administration began its assault on our communities. And so I don't think a lot of people had the hindsight or had the foresight, I should say, to realize how bad this would be, but maybe we didn't. And in hindsight, we're asking for more. At the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Kathleen Mills-Curran. Kathleen, I'm going to request that you unmute and allow you to start your video, and then you'll be able to speak. And please provide your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Andy, sorry, just a minute. I need to take a minute and take everyone in order. You can have your second go at it once we've heard from everybody the first time. Andy, I'm going to unmute you. I know I see you, I see you in the hall, but I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you. I'm going to need you to shut that off if you want to talk at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to get feedback if you do that. We can hear you. It worked. It worked, so I'm going to take you at the podium now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there are people who'd like to make a second comment for a minute, they can raise their hand on Zoom or come to the podium. Sharon, you're going to have a minute.
[Zac Bears]: You're next one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: Mike, I got to cut you off there, but thank you. Steve Schnapp, you're going to have one more minute. you should be able to start your video.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Steve. I'm planning to be there on opening day. Do we have any further comment from members of the public on the resolution? Seeing none of the chambers are on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I have it as amended to request a weekly written report and a presentation of that report at Council regular meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: So that's, that's why I have a weekly written report presented at council regular meetings. Yes. They were friendly amendments by Councilor Collins, but I'm taking them as formally presented by Councilor Lazzaro. All right, on the motion to approve as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I need to read something, and I apologize. There was one written comment on the previous resolution. I'm reading it into the record. I'm in full support of Councilor Lazzaro's resolution requiring monthly police reports on ICE activities in Menford. Weekly would be even better, given the increasing frequency of ICE detentions. We need to know what is going on in our community. We keep us safe. Thank you. Ellen Epstein, 15 Grove Street. Sorry, Ellen, that I didn't read that before. My apologies. All right, we have a motion from Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to suspend the rules to take the paper under suspension.
[Zac Bears]: It's been distributed by email. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 25098 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins, whereas the Trump administration has deployed Marines and National Guard troops in the city of Los Angeles to quell protest, and whereas this blatant overreach and misuse of federal resources are already being legally challenged by the state of California as illegal, And whereas this dangerous escalation has been justified by disinformation, including incorrectly referring to residents, exerting their right to protest the government as quote insurrectionists. And whereas the Trump administration has stated the intention to levy even more brutal force upon other cities who protest ICE raids and detentions. and whereas this illegal overreach and the precedent that sets threatens every municipality, be it resolved that the Medford City Council condemns the deployment of the federal military into the City of Los Angeles and in the strongest terms possible, and be it further resolved that the Medford City Council stands in solidarity with the City of Los Angeles and its residents. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It was Alabama in 1965 to enforce the Civil Rights Act.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. The only other thing I don't really get here, and Councilor Leming can correct me, is I don't understand how they're getting around posse comitatus. You're not supposed to deploy the military to do police actions in the United States. But this administration is declaring things, emergencies that are obviously not emergencies. Apparently we've been under invasion for 10 years. I had no idea. Are there members of the public who'd like to speak on this? Okay, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Someone speaking? Okay. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes. Please try to stick to three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll stay at the podium. Seeing no hands on Zoom, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there more public comment on this resolution? Yeah, go ahead. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone who hasn't talked yet want to talk on this item?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further public participation, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Be it resolved that City Council discuss issues on Quincy Street, in particular regarding a large... On a motion to table the resolution by Councilor Tseng, seconded by... Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? motion passes. 2, 5, 0, 9, 5, offered by Councilor Tseng, Councilor Kahns, Councilor Callahan. Be it resolved that the City Council explore solutions to reduce incidents of heavy trucking on neighborhood streets lacking the capacity, including heavy commercial vehicle exclusions and home-roll petitions. Who wants it? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the referral, or the motion to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 25039, submitted by Mayor Brian Oliver O'Kern, fiscal year 2026, budget submission revised. I'll read the revisions. Facilities, or sorry, I'll start from the top. Elections is revised to 394,929. PDS, 923,163. Facilities, 2,102,129. Police, 15,083,897. Parking, 1,062,740. Recreation, 639,351. DPW Highway 14,029,809. Cemetery 1,072,842. Parks 954,765. Forestry, $618,365. Council on Aging, $206,057. Insurance, $31,220,000. And then total revised figure for the total City General Fund budget is $205,852,504. For the enterprise fund, water and sewer has been revised to $26,941,022. The total revised total for the water and sewer enterprise fund is $29,277,779. And with that, we'll go to the chief of staff and the finance director. We also have the superintendent of schools and our school finance chief and finance team here. So we'll start with the Chief of Staff and then we'll come to you guys with any questions and updates. But Madam Chief of Staff, if you could just speak to the revisions a little bit and not necessarily what they entail in detail, but if there's anything significant in any of those that you want to discuss. Oh, sorry, I gotta turn on your microphone. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Red is good.
[Zac Bears]: And that's for the tax levy that is highlighted. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Could you just read that number again so we get it? Certainly.
[Zac Bears]: It was elections, it was PBS. I could read them off if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Facilities.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And since you're going off memory, I can also read, I'll tell you if it's personal or ordinary. Police personnel.
[Zac Bears]: We had parking enforcement ordinary expenses.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just pulling up the original submission. I might be able to give you the difference in the amount as well.
[Zac Bears]: We had recreation. That's personnel. It's down about $2000.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. DPW Highway increased 20,000 in personnel and 60,000 in ordinary.
[Zac Bears]: And there were other some other GPW ones that I... Yeah, it looks like there were personnel adjustments, some slightly higher, some slightly lower. 2,000 lower in cemetery, 10,000 lower in parks, 6,000 lower in forestry.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there's a $4,000 reduction in personnel on the Council on Aging budget, similar.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. We love Suzanne. best wishes to Suzanne in connection with Venture. Insurance, we had $31,105 million go up to $31,220 million.
[Zac Bears]: And just to confirm, this should read, and to meet the appropriations, the sum of $205,304,412.76 be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 26 tax levy and other general revenues of the city, and then the transfers should stay the same, and that hits that 205-852-504 number? That's correct. Thank you. Great. Do you have questions for the administration on the revisions to the fiscal 25 budget? I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Two other questions for the Chief of Staff and the Finance Director on the revised budget proposal. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah. Can somebody grab that? Thanks. Thanks, Ted.
[Zac Bears]: Bob got that in early. Wow.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, we always talk about time travel.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm going to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, then Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to add one thing, which is that there was also a historical practice of using Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund retained earnings to keep the rates down and not to invest in the capital needs of the system. And that is one of the things that has driven us. I don't know how much is related to that versus how much is related to the fact that the water and sewer infrastructure is 100, 220 years old, probably a lot more on the latter, but There was a lot of use of retained earnings to keep rates low. And so we're seeing I'm guessing the rate studies going to say there's going to need to be a significant increase in rates to address the fact that all the water mains are collapsed. Well, in serious condition. Yeah, one of those facts that the rates have kind of been artificially capped lower because because of that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I was a bit of a sidebar here about what's on for schools. Do you need an answer to what you just said, or am I going to Councilor living. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, I was going to bring that up if, if nobody else brought it up after everyone had a chance to speak, but since it's been brought up, I just wanted to say, I think Getting our most bang for the buck is really important here. And I appreciate the diligence in that. I don't think spending 15 of the 22 million on Freedom Way would be the most responsible decision for us to do. We could probably do it, but it probably isn't the best thing to do. I also think, though, that the point is well taken about the plan and the timeline. And I think there's one thing, which is we're taking a deep dive look at the capital plan and the CIP and how that translates to free cash. We know that the order of magnitude of need is so much more significant than the available funding. But I think there's another piece of this, which is just to be really clear and say, and it goes to the point of like establishing, either using one of the existing funds or establishing this fund for capital investments, right, which is we have a stabilization fund that is like the stabilization fund that is the reserve fund. And that meets the purposes of what the state talks about when we're talking about having reserves. And I think understanding that is our targeted reserve balance fund. This is the fund we're really planning not to touch. It's our rainy day fund. It's our reserve balance fund. we have a capital stabilization fund, and that's like, if a roof falls down, right now we're using it more for the ad hoc stuff, right? But I think it really is more of the, we're keeping this reserve, we have the reserve fund, we have a capital stabilization fund, which is for things that happen during the year, for emergencies, capital needs, and then we have an investment fund, which maybe won't get there this year, but I think it should be all of the rest of the money that is available in reserves, the fund balance for the city essentially, right? And that is the money that could go to these larger capital needs. And to me I think really being clear with the public like, here's our reserve fund, this is the target and goal balance. We're at that, and we will replenish that every year if we ever use it. here's our capital stabilization fund for emergencies, and we are going to replenish that every year, and we're using it for capital emergencies. And then here is our capital investment fund, and that is, you know, for these bigger questions. And just having that delineation, instead of just having it be nebulously free cash, free cash, free cash, and then anyone can say whatever they want about free cash, even though may not be related to reality of free cash, It gets much easier to explain to people why we have these fund balances, where they are, what are our targets and goals and what are their purposes. And so that's the work that I think we've been talking about that you just raised that I really hope we can advance because we can do that and be a lot clearer about the system that we're using to hold these funds and why they are in the buckets that they're in. And hopefully we have, you know, good growth years and the free cash is just essentially replenishing, you know, replenishing those stabilization funds and then the balance can go into an investment fund or however we would want to do that. And then there's that other question of what are our needs and how do we get our most bang for the buck using that investment fund, you know, piece to fund our things. And my understanding is that regardless of what bucket it's interest accruing, so, you know, that piece gets to live too. And there'll be carryover and we're not, you know, I'm not of the mind of saying just because we have 500 million in need, we should spend all 22 million next year. But I also agree that we need to be moving faster. So those are some of the discussions we've been having just to put that context out there since you raised it. And I think that would be really informative and helpful. That first piece of just like, this is where the money is and why. And quite frankly, as little of it as possible in free cash since that gets twisted. That I think is really helpful. And then that's not to diminish my fellow colleagues longer questions about being more urgent on using the funds available for one-time projects and what is the plan as relates to capital plan. So it's just those are the kind of two pieces that I really think about it. And if you want to talk, since I just talked for a while, I'll go to Emily and Kit.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and you know, I really appreciate that. I know that it was a real rush to the finish line on the ARPA stuff, and I know how important that was, and that quite frankly, we wouldn't have this free cash reserves funding for capital investment question if we hadn't done that, and if we didn't have ARPA, and if the federal government had never come in, because that was basically what is the reason for most of these balances. And I just want to say, I think one of these is kind of just financial question, like where's the money? Why is it there? What is the goal of each of these things? And then there's how are we spending it, which is a much bigger question where like the prioritization comes in. So that was just what I was trying to add by kind of framing those two buckets of process. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Do we have any further questions? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public on the proposed fiscal 26 budget? Yes. Name and address for the record, please, if three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to look at Bob the whole time because I think I'm going to watch his face as I make mistakes and what I'm about to say and maybe Bob can correct them. But my understanding what we're talking about here funds that are in the stabilization fund are free cash. Essentially the city's cash assets that are not committed to something that the treasurer It makes it that those are we basically pull that with other cities in through this through a state vehicle, and that that is how we hold those but I'm not 100% sure I'm going to go to the treasurer holds.
[Zac Bears]: Mass Municipal Depositors Trust, is that right? MMDT, Mass Municipal Depositors Trust, is that the acronym?
[Zac Bears]: And I think what Mike is asking is, you know, could the city invest those cash reserves in some sort of local bank that funds local businesses or something? Is that what you're asking?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. It sounds like suffice it to say that in the short term, state law governs a bunch of this and we are keeping our cash assets in the places required by law and also the places that gain the most interest. And looking at some more locally focused places to put the city's cash assets would need to be studied more and make sure it complies with the law that the state has. All right, any further comment from members of the public on the budget? Seeing none, any last comments from members of the council on the budget? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And so we have the revised submission and then there was one amendment tonight which was just correcting the words around the, I have it here, the $205,304,412.76. Great. Is there a second on the motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. I just want to thank the administration and our department heads and members of the Council, members of the public. This is our second time around with the budget ordinance, and I know it was a lot of work to pass the ordinance, and I think we're seeing some of the fruits of that. We are here on June 10th. On what is I think our ninth or 10th meeting on the budget. I have no a colleague in Somerville, they're just starting department head budget presentations tonight. So, and to be honest, my first few years on the council that is where we were to we got a budget. Early June we frantically rushed and with night meetings and you know marathon. four to eight to 12 hour Saturday session, which I don't think is really best practice to get through our budget hearings and budget meetings and, you know, then come down to the wire of is the budget going to pass? Are we going to have to schedule a special meeting? And are we going to get it done by June 30th? And what does a one 12th budget look like? And those were the days. So, I just want to note that the process, I think, starting a lot earlier, being collaborative, engaging the council early in the process, working closely together with the administration, with our finance director, chief of staff, the mayor, the whole finance team, that we really are, again, as I said before, seeing the fruits of that collaborative process to create that ordinance and in a way that I think brings a lot more stability and consistency and, you know, as much certainty as you can ever have in municipal budgeting to the process. And so I just wanted to thank everyone for their involvement in that. Thank our colleagues on the school committee for the work that they do as well with their process, which is also in recent years started moving much earlier and I think it also gives a lot of opportunity for public engagement as well. So I'm really heartened that we are where we are, that our budget process is the way that it is and that it is working so well. I think it's really a testament to the collaboration between this council and the city administration. And I'm glad it's an ordinance and hopefully they'll keep following it for a long time after all of us are not here doing it. feels a lot better than sitting here on June 28th at 2 a.m. That was some fun times, y'all. So with that, we have a motion from Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Submission Revision as amended. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes and the fiscal year 2026 budget is approved. All right, 25096 submitted by Mayor Brian Alango Kern, appropriation of free cash and retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the appropriation of One, free cash in the amount of $2,136,519.19 on the following items. $1,469,519.19 to replenish the capital stabilization fund to $5 million. Current balance, $3,530,480.81. $271,000 for school network switches and wireless access points project. $216,000 for school mini split replacement project. $100,000 for nexus studies for inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, and transportation demand management, and $80,000 for supplementary tree planting funding. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,160,443.13. Two, retained earnings from the water sewer enterprise in the amount of $462,000.00 on the following items. 100,000 to replenish the water sewer capital stabilization fund to $2 million current balance $1,900,000 150,000 to replace a water backhoe number 70. $82,000 for improvements to Doonan Street Booster Station, $80,000 for Oak Grove Cemetery water service design, and $50,000 for Rosina Street Small Sewer Extension. The balance of retained earnings in the water sewer enterprise before this vote is $10,953,475. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Legaucurne, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I do want to offer you are here if there's anything you'd like to add about the items. Owen's saying no. Noelle, Jerry, I think only if we have questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I got two quick questions, one for Owen, one for our schools team. Owen, and if you could come to the podium. What is the Oak Grove Cemetery water service design? What are we designing?
[Zac Bears]: And then the booster station at Doonan Street, is that just to get water up the hill?
[Zac Bears]: OK. And Noel and Jerry, just, it's probably a yes-no question, so I'm sorry to make you stand up for it, but both of these items, the network switches and wireless access, are these both, is the mini-split thing about the heat in the network rooms? Yes. OK. And then how much is the network switches and wireless access points, that's a little different?
[Zac Bears]: Great. If you could, and I don't expect you guys to answer this, if you could get back to us just with an understanding of How will this make more spaces at the schools more available for the use for hybrid meetings? We had a hybrid meeting at the Andrews a few weeks ago, and the internet just wasn't up to snuff. We couldn't really keep the people on Zoom, and it was kind of an issue. So if you could just get back to us on that.
[Zac Bears]: But that would be great if more of the spaces were available for use for hybrid meetings, because we're pretty short on that right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, guys. Thank you. Any more questions from members of the Council on these two requests? Any comment from members of the public on this paper?
[Zac Bears]: On the question, we had the motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing no further public comment in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in favor of the negative, the motion passes. We have two ordinances eligible for third reading, flood ordinance and parking ordinance. Motion to take papers 25067 and 25078 off the table. Second by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? opposed motion passes to 5067 amendments to the flood ordinance chapter 46 article two in City Council April 29 2025 approved first reading advertised May 29 2025 Medford transcript and several journal in Council June 10 2025 eligible for third reading on the motion to approve for third reading by Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng this is the flood ordinance amendments.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 25078, amendments to the parking ordinance, chapter 78, article 3. Motion by Councilor Tseng? President Bears? to approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Public participation to participate outside of Zoom, email ahertobeesatmenford-ma.gov. Do we have any further public participation?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion either in person or on Zoom for public participation? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Callahan. Thank you, Director Riggi. I was wondering, you know, I think something that would be useful as part of this is, you know, a spreadsheet that we can make available on the city website, just listing, you know, address, name, assessed value, and then any other kind of pertinent data for all of our city-owned buildings and as well as our city-owned properties in general. I think just having that inventory piece is really helpful. I'm sure you have a version of that that you use in your day-to-day already. But that's, I think that's a key first step and, you know, being able to put in your assessment on the condition of those properties and buildings, I think is really valuable. And then we can move to this kind of bigger question, you know, what, what is it going to take to restore or renovate or maintain or replace buildings given their condition and their, their life cycle? And, and I wonder, you know, I think, you know, going to the house doctors is certainly one option. And if they're able to do, I'm sure the bathroom project was relatively detailed work because, you know, we're planning to actually specifically install and replace bathrooms in the building. I'm wondering if, you know, a slightly more bird's eye view might be more affordable than that detailed work. But also I think it might be worth considering if, if we're seeing a very high estimate from the house doctors or something else, maybe going out to bid on something like this, or also maybe doing something similar to what DPW has done with the roads and sidewalk assessment and the water and sewer assessment, where we had that done and presented to us to inform the long-term financial plan of those capital assets. Just some thought that I'm also just wondering if you could talk a little bit more about, you know, where you started when you came in versus what resources and materials you've been able to develop up to this point. And then maybe as well just talk a little bit more about what you would be looking for in an assessment like what we're talking about. So I know those are pretty general questions, but I just think going through that in a little bit more detail would be helpful for everybody involved to hear. So thank you in advance for humoring me on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I'm directory and one other question I had is just as relates to not just the buildings but the non building properties, you know, parks to the own lots that are unused. Do you have any sort of engagement around that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I think it might be worth us also maybe engaging some of our DPW folks and maybe even planning office folks just to make sure that those those capital assets are included too. I mean, it really, I think that the, I'm not necessarily saying you, but, you know, for the council to engage those folks. You know, now that we have the road and sidewalk assessment and we have water and sewer, and we have you on board with our buildings, I think we just need to make sure that that fourth piece of what we own doesn't get left out in the long run. You know, our parks and the non-building structures on them, as well as just a full full catalog of, um, city owned lots around around the city that maybe aren't even being used for really anything right now. Or can't be used for anything in the long run.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn. Second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just two comments on this. One, on that Canal and Arlington area, I just think that the area that's bounded by Canal Street, Arlington, Boston M and the river, so not just the triangle area that's NR3, but also that other area, Um, I think it's worth looking at that being at our start. Yeah. And our 3 as well. Um, right there. Yeah, just because again, the access issues, the river question and the recent. Uh, less than recent now, but the fire. Back there, it's just a really tough area. Um, it shouldn't have been built out like that. So I think even the Boston parcels. We should look at, um. the district on that. So that's just one comment. And the other one is just on PDDs. I know we'll probably come back to that, but there are two PDDs in this district area. So what's currently a UR2 at Waukling Court. So this area right nestled up next to the train tracks around that makes use 2B. It's that the UR2 to the northeast of that. That's a PDD a little bit to your right. a little further over by the Whole Foods, the other side of the river. Yeah, so that district there, that's with the big circle in the middle, that should be the PDD. I can't remember which number PDD, but that should be one of the approved PDDs. And then also 100 Winchester Street, which is way down towards the bottom of the map, right near Broadway. We just need to make sure to include that PDD as well. So those are my two comments. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I totally forgot those were overlays of that base districts. Thank you for mentioning that.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. Yeah, so you see, I mean, my suggestion, for simplicity's sake and given the possibilities of what could happen, would be that those UR1s, you know, we have the, see that Canal Street kind of comes down and then merges with Arlington Street. And everything we have between the tracks and canal and the river on the right side of that is NR3. And then we have some of these weird parcels at the very end of Canal Street, Um, that those, those definitely I don't think should be in the corridor and called. And you are 1, I think those should align. And honestly, I also think that, um, you know, it might be worth taking kind of what. For lack of a better term, this left triangle here. The entire thing, including the Boston fronting parcels. And leave that in our 3 as well, um, because it's just a strange area and. You know. Maybe the Boston Ave parcels from an access perspective are different, but just knowing some of the details of what happened around there, it's just a difficult area. So maybe for simplicity's sake, everything within that triangle being an R3 would make sense, but certainly those two kind of back parcels that are more abutting on Canal than are abutting on Boston Ave, And then I think this stuff on Arlington that's technically in the residential district but is labeled you are one kind of at the, for lack of a better term like the north angle of that triangle that you have back, you have lots of budding in their backside on Canal Street. a little more careful about that whole area. I'm not talking about anything on the other side of Boston Ave. That makes sense because of what's built there now.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: The biggest concern I have is with anything that is nearly abutting or directly abutting that strange part of Canal Street that's basically a very tiny dead end street.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Just to Councilor Leming's point, I think that area, there's a lot of strange mix of commercial and industrial in that area where Codding Ave is and on that block. Director Hunt can correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the just looking at the interactive map, I believe that's a city owned parking lot. And I think it was, it used to be different. It was changed when the orientation of the streets were changed there to create the right angle intersection. And I think, you know, that would be a really interesting opportunity for a public private partnership. to adjust and change kind of that whole block potentially, given that so much of it is just underutilized, you know, empty lots or single story commercial. And I think in general just talking about especially the Main Street area, the zoning, it's one of the places where the existing zoning is really not reflective of the built environment in so many ways. There's so much functionally mixed use, you know, structures and uses all up and down Main Street and Medford Street, where you have these, you know, two or three-story buildings and some even very tall three-story buildings that have large, you know, floor heights. that are completely made non-conforming by the zoning that was passed after they were built. So I think it's a good opportunity with this zoning to change and get the zoning back to what is actually there and hopefully some more as well. So I see that area as a particular area of potential improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that, I had a mouse issue. My computer mouse, I should say. I just had one, I guess it's kind of going to what Kit was saying. So on these commercial nodes and then the ACUs and how they interrelate is the next step for us to discuss this at a future meeting and look at kind of a more specific proposal for the site-specific overlay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I appreciate that. And I just want to put out there maybe it might be worth taking a little bit of extra time on this one. Not so much extra time as in more thought, I think we've gotten a lot of good work up to this point, and maybe putting a pin in this specific thing for a month or maybe after June 30, just given how much else we're working on, I think might be something we should consider. So I just wanted to put that out there.
[Zac Bears]: I was going to make some motions if there's anything else you'd like to work on.
[Zac Bears]: Nevermind, I was gonna say what Alicia said.
[Zac Bears]: I move to keep the paper and proposals in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole May 27 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole at 5.30pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George P has to drive meant for Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting number six. Tonight we have the Metro police. the Metro Public Schools and our Department of Public Works. And we're going to start with the police department. Sorry, Tim. There's really no winning. Thank you. I'll recognize the chief of staff. And if you could just introduce the team and then we'll get going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'm just going to read quickly from the budget and then I'm going to kind of give you three general framing questions and then we'll go to questions from councillors after your presentation. So tonight we have the Medford Police Department budget and for fiscal 25, this is a lot of line items, it's going to take me a minute to find it. Fiscal 25, we had a $14,632,263 and proposed for fiscal 26 $15,177,397 for an increase of $545,134. Most of these changes are in fixed cost growth, highlighting $119,000 for step increases in promotion. and promotions, about $90,000 in overtime, $47,000 for differential, $50,000 in fringe, $62,000 in holiday pay, and then various inflationary costs. And we have new expenses, $25,000 for legal costs, $5,000 for training. So with that, the three questions are just tell me more about that budget, what you want to talk about, talk a bit about your highlights for fiscal 25 for the past year, goals for next year, and then let us know something that might not be in the budget this year that you'd like to see included in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Captain.
[Zac Bears]: Gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leme.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any more questions from members of the council? Seeing that I have a few, and then we're going to quickly after I'm done go through traffic commission and traffic supervisors if that's okay it's, those will be easy. And then, if there's members of the public who want to comment we'll take after that. Just a couple of quick things. there's potentially 17 slots between now and February, 2026 in the Academy. And that's what would get us up close to that 107 number, even with a few retirements. Just wanna get that right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay. And it sounds like one of the problems was that lists were short, and then if people weren't passing everything, right, then they weren't eligible and then this hybrid model has created bigger lists, but it also means that other communities are we've seen people, unfortunately, they cannot do the run.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you for that. A couple other things on the mental health grant, is that every year it comes up or does it's every year? That's an annual. And it's a state grant, right? Yes. Department of Mental Health.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so in the long term, we might want to look at, given the situation, if the state is in a funding crunch, we might want to bring that in house so that we can keep it going if the grant dries up.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, important for us to keep in mind. The legal costs item that new 25,000, it just says new 25,000 for legal costs. Could you go into a little bit more what that might go?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thanks. But I go one that's maybe a little harder and then I think one that tells a really good story. So, you know, take it even with what's going on right now, certainly ice but other federal agencies. Could you talk a little bit about how it seems to me, and this is an opinion, but I think it's shared by a lot of people in the city. that there's some element of intimidation coming in from some agencies that are coming into the city. They're not wearing, they're not identifying themselves. Sometimes they're wearing masks. Sometimes they're, you know, we've seen in other neighboring communities, smashing a car window to get into a car, things like that. How are you guys working through being able to know when they're coming here, you know, and you have to partner with them on some things. a big criminal racket and something going on in the city, we'd want local police and the FBI to be working together, right? But there's other times where it seems now that federal law enforcement is being used as an instrument of intimidation. And I'm wondering how you guys are working through that to understand when it makes sense to work together and when you might say, ask more questions and say, well, what's going on here and why are we doing this?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, I guess I mean, like, You know, we had an incident over in Haines Square, two or three weeks ago. Residents said, there's these people in my community, they're wearing masks. I don't know who they are. I don't feel safe. What do we do? How are we trying to engage with that situation, understanding there are limits on what you guys can do, but also understanding that the community, we're here to keep people safe.
[Zac Bears]: I received two or three calls myself about it. Captain Camino.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry.
[Zac Bears]: You tell them. If someone comes in, you say, hey, this is in our system. Right.
[Zac Bears]: And that's why I was kind of- And it might be the unmarked vehicle maybe is what I'm trying to- It's the whole perception of the unmarked vehicle.
[Zac Bears]: They do have some sort of, I know ICE has some sort of uniform division, so maybe that's what they should, but that's- And we've seen a few, I've seen a lot of photos with the vest and the police, ICE or police, FBI or whatever, but I've also seen some with maybe just the badge, nothing on the back. unmarked vehicle, the mask.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I really appreciate the answer and giving the details of how it works. And I understand it's difficult to be in the middle of stuff like this. So I appreciate it. And mostly I'm, it seems like all of this might make things even harder to discern.
[Zac Bears]: Definitely. No, and I appreciate you really going through the details on that. And I think the The thing for me is that safety element right whether it's immigrants who don't feel safe for people in general, in the community who see something and think is this safe is this not safe is this legitimate is this, you know, many of these immigrants are being misinformed and how the legal process works. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I think that that's the ultimate question I'm trying to get at is how do we get people the best information we can get them?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I know there's a couple of Paul Caminos in the city, too. Luckily, they seem to know each other. Fortunately, the other one is a good guy. I know him pretty well, too. As well as you. My last thing and I think you know it's just something I, I, I know and I think it's just important to talk about and I think Captain Clemente you kind of even we're getting at it a little bit. We live in a time when crime is way down, you know, over the past 30 years since the 80s over the last 30 years you know crime has really gone down. You know, I think somewhat because of the way that the news works these days and social media and all this. A lot of people think crime is going up when it's going down and I just wanted to wonder if you guys could talk a little bit about what we've seen in the city over the last 20 30 years around safety and how safe we are I can give you an answer partial answer that number one is
[Zac Bears]: I mean, the proliferation of guns in this society is certainly worrying. And I know that you guys probably see that more directly than a lot of other people because you're interacting with them. But more I was trying to, to get to the point to remind people right and we're at the lowest homicides in this region and decades we're at the lowest. A lot of people feel unsafe. Yeah, and I'm not saying that there's no no violence and that there's no crime right now, but in general violent crime especially is significantly down compared to I'm going to say something.
[Zac Bears]: A lot of money.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: And I think you would find, you know, around our schools or our DPW or anyone else here tonight. You know, Cambridge has 35,000 more people. Yes. And the budgets for those departments are two, three, four times bigger than what we have here. And that's, you know, that's a bigger regional problem, but I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate you saying it right to say we live in a very safe city does not mean there's no risk. But, you know, the anxiety that's out there.
[Zac Bears]: No, I get it. All right, I have a few, I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Lazzaro, then back to Councilor Leming, and then we gotta move this along, y'all. I'll be quicker.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else? That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think we're, I think we're going back over some ground we've already covered. Yeah, and I want to get to our DPW in our schools, because I have about 50 middle school and high school orchestra students waiting out there to play us music.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so it is. Yeah, it sounds like the answer is yes. And we're working on it where exactly.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's when I was talking about information, that was another piece I was saying, I think being able to, if residents have questions and concerns to be able to say, here's the information we have, here's the things we don't know and can't provide, here's what we do know. They checked in three times this week, you know, things like that. And I appreciate that. I think that's helpful too. I just really quickly, because we do have a public comment on this as well. You mind if I go over the traffic commission and the traffic supervisor budget really quickly? Great. So we have the traffic commission fiscal 25 budget $30,500 fiscal 26 proposed $30,500. So no change for the traffic commission and traffic supervisors. And these are our part time folks who are out there keeping kids safe after school crossing guards. This is another name people might know them by we have fiscal 25 budget 361,525 and fiscal 26 proposed 370,500 for a change of 7,775. Is there anything you'd like to talk about our traffic supervisors or the traffic commission, either of you guys?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: And that's part of the non-union, because they're non-union, right? Union. Oh, they're union. So this is part of their contract. Yes. Great. Sorry about that. Thank you. All right, do we have any questions from members of the council about the Traffic Supervisors and Traffic Commission? All right, we'll go to public comment on the Police Budget, Traffic Commission and Traffic Supervisors. So anyone in the chambers who would like to speak? Seeing none, we'll go to Zoom. I'll recognize Micah Kesselman, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second to get the timer going.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I had two questions there. I had, are there mechanisms to guard against advocates dismissed from other police forces in the hiring process? And how are we dealing with this oversaturation of like crime in our media, social media, and how that impacts mental health for officers? And you can feel free to respond to them. I just wanted to restate them. You don't have to.
[Zac Bears]: It was when we're talking about providing mental health support and treatment for our officers, how are we talking about, you know, kind of this culture of fear that we're all living in, for lack of a better term, where we see a lot of violence on our phones and on TV and on the media that isn't really as reflective of our day-to-day experience.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for both of you for the helpful answers, all of you. And I know also, you know, when we talk about guns, death by suicide is the most common thing that happens. You know, we see someone die on the other end of a gun as well. So appreciate you bringing that up and that we're working on it in a really seemingly, it seems like it's an intense and intensive way. Seeing no more questions or public comments, unless there's anyone who wants to raise their hand on Zoom or stand up in the chamber. Thanks, you guys.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Tim and Owen. I gotta do the schools too, so we're going over. I don't know, that's just half the budget, right?
[Zac Bears]: Jerry's got a PowerPoint, so. All right, I will go through this. Let's just go through alphabetically. If there's anything you want to talk about introduction wise at the beginning for overall departmental operations to Commissioner McGivern. I'll see the floor to you and then we can go through on each, each section of your department.
[Zac Bears]: Great, okay we can start with engineering and I'm just going to read the engineering budget sheet. Fiscal 25 budget 547,752. Fiscal 26 budget proposed 719.82 for an increase of 171,330 and we have here casino funded position, permanent employees, there's a significant fixed cost growth there, a new project manager position, and those are the main drivers. Everything else is essentially inflationary. There's a little bit of new training for GIS and a new monitor and laptop system in the conference room. So Three things I know Tim kind of went over this a little bit more, but we do have you here as our city engineer. If you want to talk anything more about the speak to those changes anymore.
[Zac Bears]: Compared to the current year or?
[Zac Bears]: And is that part of what's driving this project manager position addition as well.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I'm just going to jump the line here really quickly. You brought up the two big things right, you guys, manage and do the design work on probably our two biggest capital assets which are all of the water and sewer pipes for everybody, and all of our streets and sidewalks. We've been doing these studies these assessments, certainly on the road we've talked a little bit about pavement condition, you've been doing something similar for water sewer. Where are we on a capital need basis? You know, it sounds like we're going to be doing a lot more now. And it sounds like on the water sewer side that there's money coming from the fee structure for the water and sewer enterprise fund to help do that.
[Zac Bears]: Roadside comes from the general fund and from state funds. So there's not as easy a way to do the revenue element of that. Could you talk a little bit more about expectations and how are we really going to start seeing an improvement in these conditions?
[Zac Bears]: So we're one time doubling stuff like that.
[Zac Bears]: You could do significantly more if the state provided that investment.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it's been going downhill for, what, 100, so.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and there's materials posted on the website as well. Yes. I'm just going to go through and read the budget lines, since we've lumped it all together. So I'm just going to do that really quickly. Cemetery, we had $1,118,050 for fiscal 25. There's a reduction to $1,071,342. That's a reduction of $46,708. I already did engineering. Forestry, we had fiscal 25, $623,989. And there's a small reduction to $618,365. There are reduced costs for arborist support and as well as some step increases and just generally some staffing funding there. Parks, we had fiscal 25, 950,578 and fiscal 26 proposed 954,765 and there's a net decrease of 2,813 there. Highway we had fiscal 25 budgeted $12,839,686. Fiscal 26 budget $13,984,161 for an increase of $1,104,000. $475. A huge chunk of this is our waste contract. It looks like it's about $9.4 million this year. And that's an increase of $700,000 from last year. And then that's all the general fund departments and then we had water and sewer, which is the enterprise fund and that's, you know, funded by the, you know, rates the water and sewer rates fiscal 26 sorry fiscal 25 total was 26,937,511. Fiscal 26 is $26,966,670 for an increase of $29,159, which from a percentage basis actually rounds down to a 0% increase. So that's the all of the budgets for our dpw. And thank you at the beginning for going over and saying this is what percentage of your total dpw is enterprise fund and then the other department.
[Zac Bears]: Great. If you could forward that to the clerk, he can distribute it to us. We can add it to the packet for this meeting online. And also I think it'd be great to put on the website.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay, I'm going to go to Councilor Tseng Councilors are and then Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: No, they always look like that. I'm no time for jokes.
[Zac Bears]: We have neither been denied nor approved.
[Zac Bears]: Is it possible that in a future federal administration, future Congress that maybe we could the grant might come back to life? Is that something you're thinking about?
[Zac Bears]: And the tune of $22 million or so the tune of $22 million.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Those are required by the union contract? internal movements. Correct. Yeah. So we had to follow the contracts to move. Yeah, people had the positions had to be available to people already working for your department. And now that all of that is complete, what remains open is now available for the public to apply for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further questions from members of the council, just have one for you. Could you talk a little bit more about the trash contract? It's nearly 25% of the DPW budget. It's the vast majority of certainly the general fund side of the DPW budget. It's going up very fast. Could you talk about that? And then could you talk about why some of the renegotiated the new contract, for example, why we have a fee for bulk pickup now and some of the other changes?
[Zac Bears]: You mean trash as opposed to recycling?
[Zac Bears]: that might end up being more cost effective to go in that direction?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any comments from councillors, questions from councillors or any comments from members of the public on the DPW budget? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands raised on zoom. I thank you guys very much All right. Thank you going to our public schools. Next. We have the superintendent and finance team with us And as folks know, Metro Public Schools is a little bit different than all of our other city departments because they are governed by the school committee. We, both the mayor and the city council do not have any line item authority over the school budget. We simply can, we provide the full general fund allocation. The mayor makes a proposal and the city council could approve or reduce or reject that proposal. And given that we do have a budget book The fiscal year 25 budget so the year ending next month June 30 was 83 million, and the proposed fiscal 26 budget is 87,583,290. And is that also the allocation proposed by the mayor. I'll double check that but. Okay, so that's the request from the school committee, have they voted on that yet. So that's the voted request from the school committee for the general fund. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Madam Superintendent.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds great.
[Zac Bears]: I know there's been a very extensive many public meetings at the school committee that people can go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jerry. Thank you, Noel. Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Appreciate the work you've done to get this down to 419,000. Obviously, that's still a number that is meaningful for staff and services for our students in our schools. So I'm hoping we can do something. I do have a question from Councilor Collins, but I did want to ask you before that. Um, are there any one time or capital items built into the proposed operating budget approved by the school committee? Um, that we could look at potentially use of one time funds for funding those.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any comments on the Medford Public Schools budget from any members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Also seeing none, I will will continue to work with you guys sounds like we have some work on a stabilization fund creation and appropriation to make sure that we can have that available for the fiscal plan that you've drawn up. And I know that for one Councilor and I'm think I speak, you know was in our budget recommendation to the mayor, two months ago. We certainly want to see as much as possible funded the school committee recommended budget versus the allocation from the city so that's something we're going to continue to advocate for and try to see what we can do to help provide fundings to limit the reductions that you guys have to make. And I think I speak for everyone city side, we really appreciate the hard work you put into getting that gap down. So we'll continue to work on that. Is there anything else that you guys like to add, or the superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. All right, thank you. And thanks. All right, great. Just a reminder to everyone, this is the start of, well, not the start of, but we have a budget, initial proposal of the budget tonight on our agenda. We'll probably be looking at budget and finance items tonight and for both of our regular meetings on June 10th and June 24th. This is the end of our committee of the whole. Is there a motion on the, well, I'm gonna say this first. We're going to take about a five minute break, then we're going to be starting our regular meeting. I know that we have the orchestra here I want to thank everyone for waiting through our budget meetings. You are getting a live study and the pace of government but we are being diligent and we are doing our work. And so we're gonna take about a five minute break. We'll start our regular meeting. We'll hear from our award winning middle school and high school orchestra, and then we'll get to the rest of our agenda. So thank you very much. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by council, let me seconded by councilor Sang. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. That's Kelly and, yes, Vice President Collins Council is our council lemon, Councilor scrub Kelly, Councilor Tseng, President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative the motion passes, we will be moving to our regular meeting which folks should expect to start in about five minutes. Thank you and this meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: We're just waiting for the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're gonna start the meeting. We're gonna take the role. I'm gonna read the resolution, and then we'll turn it over to you all. City Council 10th regular meeting may 27 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25089 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford High School Orchestra and the Medford Middle School String Ensemble on winning gold medals at the prestigious Massachusetts Instrumental and Chorus Conductors Association Concert Festival. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council offer commendations to the Medford High School Orchestra and invite them to perform at this meeting. The further resolve of the member city council made the public to the school committees June 9 meeting where the Medford middle school string ensemble will perform and receive commendations Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you so much. We'd love to hear more. I'm going to introduce Councilor Tseng up here to read off the student names and folks can come through. We'll come down here and we'll shake everyone's hand as they come through and then we'll take a photo with you. But do you have more music first? Is there any more music to be played or? Is that the only song? Okay. I don't want to put you on the spot. Everyone just looks very ready. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: You need these. Oh, you're gonna have to chase it. All right, thank you everyone. Much appreciated. All right, on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears yes have the affirmative, none of the negative emotion passes. The motion of Council, I'm going to take the paper under suspension, seconded by Councilor Tseng, let's please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from the negative emotion passes so we'll take 25092, and 25039. 25092 offered under suspension by Council Leming, resolution for the City of Medford to commemorate those who gave their lives in service to their country this Memorial Day, whereas Medford is home to many veterans and as well as their families and descendants who dutifully served their country throughout its history, whereas Medford is honored to be the final resting place of many men and women who gave their lives in military conflicts, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and Operation Enduring Freedom. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commemorate Memorial Day to honor our veterans and all those who support them. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President Collins Yes, thank you, Councilmember for putting this resolution forward. and for representing the council and thank you to our veteran services office and the mayor and her team and all of the volunteers from post 45 and everyone else who makes what happened yesterday. Kevin, I could, the band, I could go on and on and on. That event doesn't happen without a lot of people. And, you know, in my family, I mean, I have a cousin right now who's in the Air Force, but really the when I think about the sacrifice that people make. In my family, those sacrifices were in the World Wars, in World War I and World War II. And I think often on Memorial Day about Gettysburg Address. And I'm also very much drawn in this moment to Why we asked people to make sacrifices and what were they sacrificing their lives for. And, you know, Franklin Roosevelt speech in 1940 before the war about. building the arsenal of democracy to fight fascism stands with me in a very strong way. It has for a long time, but especially now, so many people gave their lives to fight fascism and far right extremism and genocide and these things that are just inhuman. We need to honor that memory. So thank you for putting this resolution on on the motion of Council I mean to approve second by Councilor Collins was to please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: fiscal year 2026 budget submission submitted by Mayor Brando current. May 22 2025 to the Honorable President members of the Medford City Council fiscal year 26 budget submissions dear President Bears and the members of the City Council, pursuant to Massachusetts general law chapter 44 section 32, I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund budget and water and sewer enterprise fund budget the total submitted appropriation for all departments including schools over the board for both the general fund and enterprise fund. is $235,093,352. For the general fund, we have the assessing department $644,812, legislative $307,359, executive $690,388, finance $880,135, Treasury 780,059 Law 525,228 Information Technology 360,257 City Clerk 408,686 Elections 385,466 Licensing Commission $5,800. Conservation Commission $7,500. Planning Development and Sustainability $917,163. Community Development Board $10,100. Zoning Board of Appeals $12,500. Historic District Commission $5,000. Historical Commission $35,000. Medford Community Media $215,061. Hormel Commission $5,400. Bicycle Commission, 1500. Building Department, 1,057,806. Electrical Department, 752,094. Facilities Department, 2,098,129. Police Department, 15,177,397. Traffic Supervisors, 370,500. Traffic Commission $30,500. Fire Department $15,802,494. Civil Defense $9,840. Parking Enforcement $1,059,740. Recreation Department $641,373. Medford Public Library $2,231,939. Department of Public Works Highway Division $13,949,161. Department of Public Works Cemetery Division $1,071,342. Department of Public Works Parks Division $964,765. Department of Public Works Engineering Division $719,082. Department of Public Works Forestry Division $624,615. Department of Health, $955,579. Council on Aging, $210,057. Department of Human Resources, $320,493. Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, $129,911. Department of Veterans Services, $448,716. Contractual agreements $1,000,575,000 workers compensation insurance $928,000 health insurance three health and other insurance $31,105,000. pensions $16,767,540 bonds and interest $5,060,178 education Medford public schools $85,490,000 for a total general fund proposed budget of $205,748,665. And to meet these appropriations, the sum of $205,200,573.76 to be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2026 tax levy and other general revenues of the city, and that $105,300 be transferred from the sale of cemetery lots, $257,756.40 be transferred from the cemetery perpetual care funds, and $185,034.84 be transferred from casino mitigation funds. Further, we have the Enterprise Fund, Water and Sewer Enterprise Budget, $26,996,930. Water and Sewer Bonds and Interests, $2,336,757. Further, that $29,333,687 be funded by anticipated revenue of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. We're gonna let go current mayor. We'll hear from the mayor in just a moment. And just to give introduction to the process, we did hear from some of our departments earlier tonight, as well as the Metro Public Schools. We have had six preliminary budget meetings going over all of our departments. The council issued a series of recommendations to the mayor last month after our first preliminary budget meetings. And what will happen from here is we will take consideration of the budget. likely not finally voting at this meeting, but voting at a future meeting. There will be some other associated papers for budgeted transfers and other items. And once we complete our process, then the school committee will take back up their budget based on the allocation finally voted here by the city council. And with that, I'll introduce the mayor, Breanna Lugo-Kirk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor, do we have questions for the mayor on the budget submission. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor. And we can talk about which ones are for the 10th and which ones are for the 24th. So, yes, we don't make you do them all in two weeks. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to say one thing I for one don't think the mayor lines up with my ideology and views all that much but you know, we can still work together.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. I'm just going to go to Vice President Collins and I'll come back to you.
[Zac Bears]: The pavement management plan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I mean, just for one person, And maybe we're just using different words. When we talk about how did we spend the money and did it go to the places we set it, but we're doing that every year. And that's, that's what the audit is right yes we talked about how should the city spend money, where should money be spent. Well, we have a conversation about that every two years and it's, we have it every year it's called the city budget and we have it every two years it's called an election. I mean, that's different, you know, people disagree with how the mayor's making decisions about, and I disagree with you often, and all of us do, how to spend money. Then you have to put someone else in the office to make different decisions I mean that's just say that's an audit that's not. That's I just think we're using different words to talk about what decision making is about. So that's just my opinion. And I appreciate that we are a little more clear on the differences of what we're talking about now. Is there anything else you'd like to add or the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're gonna go to any public participation. Well, first I need a motion. Is there a motion on the floor, Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to table the paper to June 10th, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public either in person or on zoom about the city budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 income to the podium on in person or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing no further discussion on the motion of Vice President Collins to table the budget to June 10 seconded by Councilor Sagan. Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Actually looks like we've lost Councilor Callahan so all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: So the budget will be tabled to June 10th but we'll pick it up for further discussion. The regular order of business records the records of the meeting of May 13 2025 for past Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records. On the motion of Councilor Scott probably to approve the record seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins, all those in favor. Passes reports of committees 24033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee may 14 2025.
[Zac Bears]: I oppose motion passes. 2-5-0-6-9 offered by Councilor Callahan, Public Works and Facilities Committee, May 20, 2025. Report to follow. This is a meeting on the Chevalier Theatre. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 25039 offered by President Bears committee of the whole May 2020 2025 report to follow this was one of our preliminary budget meetings we discussed the proposed budgets for several departments. Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 25 or three nine offered by President Bears can be the whole May 21 2025 report to follow. This was again another preliminary budget meeting we discussed the budgets for several departments, is there a motion, motion to approve by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes hearings 25 or three six petition to amend the special permit to 82 mystic Avenue. This is the clear channel billboard. And they have once again asked for a continuance. So I'm going to reopen the public hearing. Public hearing is now open. Is there a motion? On the motion to continue to our next regular meeting by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Public hearing is closed until June 10th. PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His): hearings public hearings 25044 public hearing proposed amendments the men for zoning ordinance chapter 94 residential districts, these, this is the residential districts. PB, David Ensign — He, Him, His.: : proposal. In the zoning updates project, the community development board has not yet reported out recommendations to the council. So we need to open the public hearing because it was duly noticed and submitted, but we do not have the recommendations from the community development board yet and their next public hearing on the residential districts proposal will be on June 4th. So I'm declaring the public hearing open. Is there a motion? On the motion to continue to the June 10th regular meeting by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. That hearing is continued to June 10th. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25070 petition for a grant of location, National Grid, Gas Main, Washington Street, Washington Place, Cross Street. And we have the proponent, a representative proponent, here to present on the grant of location. Diana, I think you have some of the worst luck with our long meetings of anyone, but welcome. Well, that's true. You did get to see the orchestra, and that's a rare gift. But you're always here on budget night for some reason. 25070, we have the grant of location. Let me just get it out in front of me. One second here. So, we have 25 070 petition for a grant of location, National Grid, North and Massachusetts proposed installation of a new gas main in Washington Street Washington place and cross street. You're hereby notified but by order them in for the city council at the city council will hold the public hearing and the Howard up all the chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George B has to drive and via zoom on Tuesday May 27 at 7pm, a link to be posted no later than Friday May 23 2025 on a petition by the Massachusetts electrical company DBA National Grid for permission to install a new gas main including necessary standing and protecting fixtures, located at Washington Street Washington place and cross street. The following started the engineering division recommends the grant that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant location is limited to approximately 72 feet of 12 inch gas main as depicted on the plan to before starting work the contractor should notify dig safe dig safe and shall obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a trench permit pursuant to section 74 141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. Three no other utility structures conduits duck banks pipes or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted national grid shall assure ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked for any excavation for. The project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Five, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate and better communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved, City Engineer. So with that, we'll hear a presentation from the proponent and then I will open the public hearing And we also have the engineer on zoom, if you would like to add anything after we hear from the proponents so go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Engineer we're telling do you have anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, with that, I will open the public hearing to anyone. Well, actually, do councillors have any questions? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Your neighborhood's getting safer. All right, well, if the councilors don't have any other questions, I will open the public hearing. public hearing is open. If there's anyone who'd like to speak in favor and opposition or otherwise on the project. You want to go first, Diana?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else either in person or on zoom who would like to speak in the public hearing on this project? You can either come to the podium in person or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing none, I will declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Councilor Scarpelli has made a motion to approve. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro and that would be approved with the conditions. Approved with the conditions as defined by the city engineer. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and have a great evening. Great. 25071, petition for a grant of location, National Grid 401, Boston Avenue. We have here. Petition for grant of location, National Grid, North Andover, Massachusetts, proposed relocation of five poles near 401 Boston Avenue. We're hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alton Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, May 27th at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, May 23rd, 2025, on a petition by the Massachusetts Electrical Company, DBA National Grid, for permission to relocate five existing poles on 401 Boston Ave. The following five poles are referred to in Plan No. JO-31061167-401B to relocate the five poles. The Engineering Division recommends that this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. One, the grant of location is limited to relocating five joint-owned utility poles located within the cement concrete sidewalk near 401 Boston Avenue and labeled P3317. P3318, P3319, P3320, and P3321 as depicted on the sketch. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and obtain all applicable permits from the Engineering Division. The project must obtain a public right-of-way occupancy PRO permit pursuant to Section 74141 of the City Ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National grid shall ensure that all sewer water and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Four, placement of the joint owned utility hole must provide at least 36 inch clearance of accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations and city standards. Five, temporary sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of installation and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any asphalt sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut along the edges. Six, the project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Seven, Boston Avenue is a heavily traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail to perform this work the engineering division recommends the applicant consult with Metro Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work. Since work hours may be restricted to outside normal operations, eight. At least 72 hours before the prior to the start of the project National Grid must coordinate the butter communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Approved Steve Randazzo, Superintendent of Wires. Approved City Engineer Owen Wartella. Do we have a representative of National Grid here to speak to this project?
[Zac Bears]: If there's anything you want to add to talk about the project, thanks for being here through our meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just if you want to describe the project. And if you could just speak into the microphone. Thank you. And provide your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we do have the engineer here. If you have anything you want to add on, you should be able to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, thank you, Engineer Wirtala. Are there any other questions by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Public hearing is open to anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise register a comment of any kind on this project. If you would like to comment, register your support. National Grid support.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I see two folks here. I'll recognize Rocco DiRico. Rocco, just your name and address for the record, and if you could provide your comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Jeremy Martin. Jeremy, name and address for the record, and please register your comment on this grant of location.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jeremy. Is there any further comment on this item? Seeing none, I'm declaring this public hearing closed. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with the conditions of the city engineer, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative what happens the motion passes Thank you so much. Thanks for sharing with us. Fun way to spend a Tuesday night. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 25-075 offered by Councilor Leming, whereas veterans are often in need of food, transportation, and heat expenses, and whereas the good people of Medford may like to contribute to this cause, and whereas Medford area has provisions for allowing voluntary donations to the police and fire department on our excise tax bills. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we adopt the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 60, Section 3F, which allows municipalities to add a section for voluntary donations on excise tax bills that will go towards a fund for in need residents Councilor by me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council I'm going to approve this adoption of Massachusetts general law chapter 60 section three F, second about second by Councilor Tseng, since this is an adoption of state law.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins Council is our council let me Councilor Scarpelli Councilor Tseng, President Bears, yes, six affirmative what happens the motion passes, 2005 086 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance accessory dwelling units for referral to the Community Development Board. This is reported out of the planning and permitting committee, and the procedural next step is for us to refer to Community Development Board. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of cancer cancer for Community Development Board seconded by seconded by Council is our Councilor Scarborough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, we adopted all of the CDB recommendations for Mr. Green score, the phase one changes and all but one CDB recommendation for the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district. On the motion, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 25087 offered by Councilor Collins, 2024 Community Control Republic Surveillance Annual Report. One second here. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss and approve the 2024 Community Control Republic Surveillance Annual Report pursuant to Section 50 Article 3 Community Control Republic Surveillance Ordinance. One question I have here before we get started, Vice President Collins, is this also going to constitute approval of the LPR use policy that is included here? The license plate reader use policy was included in this packet from the parking department. Does approval of the annual report also constitute approval of the license plate reader policy? Okay. I might want us to take two votes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the B paper to approve the LPR policy, we'll take that first. Is there any further discussion on the approval of the license plate reader policy?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve the license plate reader report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes on the main paper to approve the annual surveillance report is our motion. Motion approved by Vice President Collins seconded by Council is our all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25088 offered by Council is our resolution requiring monthly police chief report on ice activity in Medford Council is our.
[Zac Bears]: I motion to table by Council is our second by Councilor Tseng the motion is a debatable all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes and that is tabled. Communications from the mayor, 25085, appropriation of free cash, parking or kiosk replacement, and so remediation at 448 High Street. I neglected to mention this as part of the committee report. We did discuss this last Wednesday at our committee meeting, and we heard from our parking director and our city engineer on this. Councilor Collins. One second, just so I read it into the record. free cash dear President barriers and city councilors may 15 2025 I respect the request and recommend that your body approves following a free cash appropriation the amount of $150,859 and 89 cents. on the following, sorry, 98 cents on the following. $92,859.98 for replacement of the remaining Flowbird parking kiosks to IPS parking kiosks and 58,000 for the continuation of slow remediation services at 448 High Street. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,311,303.11. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lingo, current mayor. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the appropriation, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? seeing even the city engineer is shaking his head so he's he's all set. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the affirmative. What happens to the motion passes, 25090 offered by memory and legal current. proposed wage adjustment for non-union personnel, dear president bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances chapter 66 entitled personnel, article two entitled reserve the city's classification and compensation plan formally included as article two section 66 dash 31 through 66 dash 40 by adopting the following changes. Non-union personnel effective July 1, 2025 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 2%. Thank you for this kind of attention to this matter, thank you for your kind attention to this matter respectfully submitted Brianna Lego current mayor, Mr. Clark, could you make Dr. Cushing, and Director Crowley co host of this meeting, please. Dr. Cushing is not on this paper but the next paper. But Director Crowley is on this one so I want to make sure that she can speak to the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, director Crowley, if you could make a presentation on this paper, anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Crowley. Is there a motion? A motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve for first reading by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion by members of the council, no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears, yes, five of the affirmative, one of the negative one absent the motion passes and this is ordained for first there's approved for first reading. 091 submitted by Mary brain on the curtain authorization of a five year contract for Rico USA copy machines and printers. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following five-year contract with Ricoh USA Inc. for the lease of copy machines and a print technology solution in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30b, Section 12, which requires City Council approval for a contract that exceeds three years. Please see the attached for an outline of the scope of the agreement for the School Department. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Lovego Kern, Mayor. And I will recognize Dr. Cushing, our Assistant Superintendent of operations and innovation, is that right? Did I get it right?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anything you'd like to add on this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Assistant Superintendent Cushing. Is there any further discussion or questions by members of the council for Dr. Cushing? Seeing none, is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Vice President Colin seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the room.
[Zac Bears]: 561 absent the motion passes Thank you Dr. fishing. Move to public participation and for school that Councilor Tseng no that she is not available, is there a motion to postpone that paper to the next regular meeting on the motion of Councilors saying seconded by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public participation, either in person or on zoom. Sure, give me one second to get the timer going. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Good to go to Zoom. I have Mr. Castagnani on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Andy, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Mr. Cassidy. Kevin Foley has been hired to serve as the city solicitor.
[Zac Bears]: The physical office, I guess it's the law department office on the second floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to comment on?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, Andy. Have a good night.
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who would like to comment in public participation? Seeing no one at the podium and no hands on zoom. Is there a motion on the floor on the motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes, and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole May 21 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears present five present two after the meeting is called to order, there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee the whole. May 1st, 2025 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. Our action discussion items today are 25039 for the budget process, preliminary budget meeting, and 25085 submitted by the mayor in appropriation of free cash. And this is a discussion and it'll be, it could be referred to a regular meeting for final action. Just to get it out of the way, we're going to take 25085 first. This is an appropriation of free cash for parking kiosk replacement and soil remediation at 448 High Street. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following free cash appropriation in the total amount of $150,859.89 for the following, or 98 cents for the following, 92,859.98 for replacement of the remaining Flowbird parking kiosks, IPS parking kiosks, and 58,000 for the continuation of solar remediation services at 448 High Street. The balance of free cash before this vote is $22,311,303.11. Parking Director Sarah McDermott and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer any questions on the respective requests. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters. Brianne Aligo-Kern, Mayor. I'm not seeing Owen, I do see Sarah. If you guys wanna come up and present a little bit more about these requests, and maybe we can start with the parking kiosks as we await the City Engineer. And you can feel free to move that down, if helpful. And I do want to note that Councilor Collins has arrived and Councilor Leming is absent due to military service so we'll go to parking director right now.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any other questions from members of the council? I
[Zac Bears]: Back of the napkin, would you guess would be more expensive?
[Zac Bears]: And would those require like electrical wiring to install and
[Zac Bears]: And that's between the college intersection and Harvard Street?
[Zac Bears]: What's our compliance like in the area, especially around the T station. So are a lot of people using the kiosk like how often are we seeing people parking all day to take the T and how often are we ticketing them and. I'm just, yeah, it's just kind of a unique area of public parking and that's why I'm wondering what the best treatment might be.
[Zac Bears]: And it's unlimited. They can stay the whole day.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And, and enforcement is going up there on a daily basis.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So my last question is kind of on a two year time horizon with the dorm project. you know, some of the use in that area is going to change. We're going to have a lot more people, probably a lot more activity. I know that Tufts is talking about significant improvements to the street. How has the kiosk project been incorporated into that? I would hate to see us buy these and then take them out, you know, in two years because of the significant design changes on the street.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And on this other side of the street as well? Correct. Okay. And so if there are changes on the other side of the street, I know that they've talked about in the sidewalk over there as well. strange to say the least. Yeah. With that weird kind of lip. I know that's going to be changed. So would we install these now and then maybe have to uninstall them and then they redesign and then we reinstall them? Is that kind of?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess my only thought would be, let's make sure that if there's significant changes that the reinstallation removal and reinstallation if necessary is something that tops and their contractor is responsible for. Installing them and then having to pay whatever the installation fees are in a few years if they make significant changes to locations or or the lot of the street i'm thinking actually on the track side of Boston Avenue across from the dorm that's kind of where my concerns are.
[Zac Bears]: Those are off on that side too. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Seeing none, we'll go to Engineer Wartella to talk about the Soil Remediation Services.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, Owen, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Which lot is this again?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do you have any questions, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great, thank you. Do we have any further questions for the City Engineer? Seeing none, is there a motion and it would be to refer out? A motion to refer to the regular meeting by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, Owen. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Already gotten back to work. All right. Next, we're going to take 25039 Annual Budget Process Preliminary Budget Meeting. Tonight, we're talking Assessor, Building, Clerk, Legislative, Electrical, Fire, Insurance, Pensions, Bonds, and Interests, and Recreation slash Farmhouse Stadium. We're going to take Recreation first. So we're going to go to our Rec Director, Kevin Bailey, and we will hear about what's happening in the Recreation department. So first I'm just going to read off the budget, and then we'll do Hormel next but here we have department recreation fiscal 25 budget 607,787 fiscal 26 proposed 641,373 for an increase of $33,586. As our net increase, we have some fixed cost growth. We have some step increase, stipend increase, or a stipend that's eligible for, and additional training for part-time employees. And then we also have a new expense under part-time employees for an office manager position for the department. So with that, I have a general kind of three items that I asked everyone. So first, just share, you know, any other things you'd like to talk about with the change in the budget. And then let us know kind of what your accomplishments were this year. What are some goals for the upcoming year. And finally, what are items that aren't funded in this budget that you'd like to see funded in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Kevin. I'm gonna go to councilor Scarpelli then council Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Just a quick follow up on that. Kevin, where do we pay the electric right now? Like is that in the building? Sorry, the facilities budget or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a couple quick questions for myself, Kevin. You just, and you always do this, but could you just talk a little bit about how your department is funded in general? I know you get personnel money from the city but everything else comes from your program fees and outside funding can you just talk a little bit about that more. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And how is the you said the friends has brought in some money, what about that element of it the non fee like the outside funding, what is that, how much is coming in and.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Do we have any other questions for Kevin Bailey and our recreation department? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public about the recreation department budget? Seeing none in person or on Zoom, thank you. Kevin, can we quickly talk about Hormel? I'm seeing Hormel Stadium or Hormel Commission, 5400 Fiscal 25, 5400 Fiscal 26. So no change, but is there anything else you'd like to say about that?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions about Hormel Commission Seeing none, thank you, Kevin.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we're gonna go to the assessing department. All right, we have here assessing... No, good at the end. We have the assessing department. Fiscal year 25 budget, $589,783. Fiscal 26 budget, $644,812. fixed cost growth, keeping a part time employee on through the revaluation process some inflationary increases to supplies and services and software. And then we have a new expensive 57,000 for the state required citywide revaluation. So with that we'll go to our chief assessor. And same questions, just give us some commentary on the budget any of the changes that I mentioned your accomplishments in fiscal 25 goals for fiscal 26 and anything that's not in this budget that you think needs to be funded in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great, do we have questions for the assessing department? Don't worry, I do. So I noticed there's a reduction in the field assessor roles. What's the impact of that gonna be?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it looks like it's going down from... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: But there's going to be... We won't be able to catch up as much without them.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And that's essential to maximizing our new growth is essential.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Can you explain a little bit of a difference between the annual re-evaluations and reassessments of properties and what the statewide re-evaluation is? Why are they different? What is the state mandate that's different from what we do every year?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And so that's what the state revaluation is. It's, it's the same, you're doing the same thing every year, but sometimes the state comes in to double check.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. That's super helpful, because I think might look like there's extra reevaluation or, you know, but it's the same thing and it's a double check and make sure you're following the rules and regulations that we have to follow every year and they observe you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Last question. You know, we talked about it pretty extensively as a council. It was one of our key requests in the budget process was that we really want to consider residential exemption. with this budget, with the staffing, if we came in December and we said we're voting a residential exemption, would you be able to handle that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Yeah, we definitely want to be able to consider that, so I think it's something we're going to need to talk about more as we move through the budget. People have questions now, so I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think Jared's saying for the following July.
[Zac Bears]: So if we voted in December to implement a residential exemption, that would apply for the tax rate for the fiscal year starting the next July.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: They would need to work from, well, probably even starting a little earlier than that, I'm guessing, to do the prep, but certainly from December through June. Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I just wanted to talk a little bit more about two of the topics so can start with the new growth. You know, regardless of the type of new growth, you know, new growth has been significantly higher the past couple years than it was in the past, you know, could you go over the new growth numbers over the last few years.
[Zac Bears]: So those 2.2, 2.3 million a year numbers were mostly from your catch-up project?
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any expectations on this year?
[Zac Bears]: What do you expect from like all this aggregation of the smaller things, the nine unit building on in West Bedford Square, stuff like that?
[Zac Bears]: And they come in the next year.
[Zac Bears]: So we're gonna be in that 2 million range still or so is the estimate?
[Zac Bears]: Do we see that dropping in the next few years because of what you're talking about?
[Zac Bears]: And that two million number is historically very high for Medford over the last 10 years.
[Zac Bears]: On the, obviously, Mourning Growth is great, and I hope we get more. For the Davis Company's project on the Fells Way, I mean, that obviously they have, they've done demolition, there's construction going on. Mystic Valley hasn't started yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And so do you expect, like, when would we get the full realization? Is that a year or two out?
[Zac Bears]: The next June 30 would get the other 50%, and that's even if it's occupied or not it's just the construction.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. And then on the residential exemption, basically my understanding of the way it works is you assume 7,000 homes are gonna apply for the exemption, let's say it's a 30% exemption. And what the city has to do is say, okay, we're gonna lose that much, you know, if we, which we won't, right? Like the levy doesn't come down, but that would reduce the levy by this much. So we have to have the rate be higher. And because there's a higher rate and because the exemption amount is fixed, it applies kind of a progressive curve to what is currently a flat residential rate. Is that essentially correct?
[Zac Bears]: And so if you're under the breakeven, If you're very low, if you're in a $300,000 home, I don't know that there's many left with that valuation here in Medford, you would be receiving the most benefit. And then if you're in a very, very high value residential property, even if you're one of many tenants of multi-hundred million dollar valued property, that's where the higher rate is gonna impact the most in a dollar amount.
[Zac Bears]: So it really benefits the small, small single families condos. Maybe if you have a three family that's of low value and you divided it across three units, something like that, but yeah, I don't, it's possible that three family would be under the break even, but be unlikely, very unlikely.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any more questions for assessing? Anything else you want to add, Jerry? Nothing else. All right. We're good. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Go to the building department. We have the building commissioner with us, Scott Vandewall. Building Department Fiscal 25 Budget $1,031,543. Fiscal 26 Proposed $1,057,806 for an increase of $26,263. Most of this in the fixed cost growth, phone contracts, postage spending, clerical contracting, COLA increases, and the copier lease, and two new citizen-served licenses under new expenses. And my three questions for you are the same as everyone else just if there's anything else you'd like to add around the change to your budget. What were your accomplishments this year goals for next year, and what is something that you'd like to see funded in the future that wasn't funded in this budget. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Board is not lighting up. I have a couple of questions for you. We have been working on this new, well, we have a request out to departments around the new fee schedule. Have you been able to take a look at your fees and fines and make recommendations?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. We'll take those recommendations. We'll ask them, ask the chief of staff for them, and we'll see if we can work on updating some of those fee amounts to get us more into a reasonable range. Vice President Collins, do you have a follow up on that? Okay, well, I'll just go to you and then I'll come back to my questions.
[Zac Bears]: Speaking of busy, permit and inspection times. How do we do on that? Are we, you know, how long does it take on average to get an inspector out to a site after they've, you know, how does our time put compared to other communities? Are we longer, shorter?
[Zac Bears]: How long on average would you say from a filing of a permit to a determination you know how long does that take?
[Zac Bears]: And is that done electronically or on paper at this point?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think the consistent clear and equitable experience that you know, any applicant receives is essential. And so, and speedy as best as we can do it. Last question, leaf blower ordinance. I know it's new. I know we're working on it. The ordinance does require large commercial operators to submit management plans and municipal operators as well. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And how do we get enforcement on that? Or what, what reason, you know, what does your office doing to, to get those plans submitted and to, and what does enforcement look like if someone calls and says that someone's violated?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think just one, you know, I'm sure you're doing it. But If we could work with the communications team to get something up on the city website that just kind of explains what you're talking about. Is the citizen serve module just going to be internal? Or are you going to ask people to submit their plans through that module, we're going to treat it much like we do with the outdoor dining licenses.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think something on the website that just is, you know, here's if you're an operator who needs to submit a plan, here's the link, here's some of that. If you're a resident who feels that the ordinance is being violated, this is the process noting maybe some of the limitations of the enforcement, you know, just so that there's kind of a clear landing page for people who have questions and concerns about this, both if they're an operator or a resident who wants a little peace and quiet during the time the ordinance says they should have some Awesome. Thank you on that. I appreciate the answer. Council is our Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I think, you know, even just pointing people in that direction, making sure there's a, category and see click fix for the specific issue. Those kinds of kind of small nudge guidance for folks will help because I'm sure a lot of people are complaining generally, but maybe not. We're not hearing about it. They're just complaining in their kitchen or something. Thank you for that. Any further questions for the building department? Seeing none. Thank you. Commissioner. All right, we'll go now to clerk and legislative. We do have our assistant city clerk with us. We may go back and forth with our city clerk who's sitting beside me, but we will start with the city clerk's office and then we can do legislative. We have fiscal 25 budgeted 40, 406,364, fiscal 26 budgeted 408,686 and increase of 2,322. We have in here that this is all fixed cost growth. We have contract increases for the staff. We have a printer and copier contract increase, increase for book binding, inflationary costs in office supplies, increase for clerk conferences and training, and an increase for some of our subscriptions that we use for licenses and records. So with that, turn it over to our Assistant City Clerk and same three questions as for everybody else. Feel free to go into the budget more.
[Zac Bears]: I'll turn it over to our City Clerk and then our Assistant City Clerk. But just talking generally, any additional comments you want to make on the change to the budget, then accomplishments this year, goals for next year, and what's an item that's not funded that you'd like to see funded in the future. So we'll start with the City Clerk. who will then go back to being the clerk of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for the clerk or the assistant city clerk? I actually don't have any myself on the clerk's budget. It's pretty self-explanatory.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that makes sense. I think as you gear up and get everything on there this year, then you'll be running those. So it makes sense when everyone's using them that, and the reporting seemed to be a great benefit in general. Yeah. Thanks for adding that and we'll be on the lookout for that in the next budget. All right, legislative, we have a legislative fiscal 25 312 689 fiscal 26 307 359 for a reduction of 5,330 taking a taking a budget cut y'all. And it looks like the main change is the reduction from $51,000 to $35,000 for our professional technical services, which is what we've been using for our zoning consultants. So we are keeping a chunk of that because we will be continuing that into fiscal 26 at this point. And I did work with the clerk who worked with the administration on this. I do actually have a question for might be for Bob. Hi, Bob. It looks like we might be booking. Some of the services that we use for our meeting management and agenda in the wrong line item, just because I'm seeing no to date actuals in the legislative repair and maintenance line item. And I'm seeing that we're over on professional technical services. I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at that, or obviously Adam or Rich, if you have any thoughts on that. It's really, it's all coming out of the same ordinary expense pool, so it's not a big deal, but for our budget, but I just think we might be putting some stuff in the wrong line from how I'm reading it right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think it's the Civic Plus stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like it might be getting entered into 5310, and it should be getting entered into 5240. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, it's not a big deal. And don't worry about it now. But Bob's here. You're here. You're both aware of it. Great. Thanks, Bob. Do we have any questions about the legislative budget for the clerks or I guess for me? Well, we're hoping that we'll be able to find someone to help us out with that soon, so. Great, thank you. Next we have our, and thank you both. Thank you, Rich. Thank you, Adam. We have our electrical budget. We have a Superintendent of Wires Randazzo with us. Fiscal 25 budget, 678,805. Fiscal 26 proposed, 752,094. We have COLA increases, an adjustment to reflect overtime and historical actuals, a couple of contract increases, some inflationary cost increases for meter charges and office supplies. So these are all under fixed cost growth. And then we have a big increase adjusting for our streetlights and the lighting costs there. And off street for recreational as well, lights. So that's the summary here. I will go to Superintendent Weyers, same as everybody else. What, you know, any comment anymore on those changes that I just mentioned? Accomplishments last year, goals next year?
[Zac Bears]: No light poles falling down or anything like that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you have any questions for Mr. Randazzo on the electrical budget? I just have one. Could you just talk a little bit more about that increase for this, the, the 55,000 for the lights and what, what that's going towards.
[Zac Bears]: Right. All right, thank you for keeping the lights on for us all. We appreciate it. Seeing no further questions on electrical. Well, thanks for sitting through this. We'll take you to fire. Maybe we'll take Steve first next time. We have Medford Fire Department. We have our chief Todd Evans with us. We have fiscal 25 budget $15,126,017 fiscal 26 proposed $15,802,494 that's an increase of $676,477. And we're looking at. The vast majority of that fixed cost, it's all mostly in fixed cost growth, although quite a bit of some new expenses. We're seeing $526,000 in the increase for permanent employees. That's eight firefighters last year budgeted for half year and this is bringing those up to full year. We also have contract increases and step increases. We have some increase in part-time clerical staff to help with transitioning to a new office manager. We have some contract increases for the firefighters. Postage is going up a bit, janitorial going up a bit, clothing is up because there's 13 new hires being added, replacing radio batteries, and then we have some new expenses. We have legal costs going up under professional services, additional training within the fire department and individual classes, restoring a couple of the motor service repair items back to fiscal 24 levels. some new tracking software, prices are increasing for some of our firefighting and rescue supplies, and then conference dues going up, and then $8,200 for public education. So that's everything. We've got a long list of line items there on that second page. But with that, we'll turn it over to the Chief, and same as everyone else, if you could tell us, you know, anything more you'd like to say about those changes beyond, you know, I'm sure you have more context than what I have, just what's written here. Talk about some of your accomplishments this year, goals for next year, and something that's maybe not funded here that you'd like to see funded in future years.
[Zac Bears]: And are you, some private equity firms are buying up these fire manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers and gouging us basically? All right, great.
[Zac Bears]: Even Rich Lane didn't bring a video.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, that's great. All right. Less holes, that's always good.
[Zac Bears]: The run figures? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe we can circle back to it. It's available here. We'll make it available to the public.
[Zac Bears]: 10,000 spots. So these two chief, are we looking at, these are one-time costs or how much of this is ongoing? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And for the dive team, are those one-time costs as well, mostly, or how much of that is ongoing?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, chief. We'll go to questions. I have Councilor scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just remember my first words, eight minutes after we knew that question six had failed, we're coming back for a fire station. So I'm one who will vote the debt exclusion Tuesday night if it's proposed. I also actually need to step out, so I'm being rude as well. But I do want to thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of minor questions, but I might just send them over email. Appreciate the work that you're doing. I know there's a lot that our department needs from a staffing, a capital, and other perspectives. So just really appreciate the challenge that you're facing and the work that you need to do. And thank you for being open and transparent and I really appreciate the presentation that you're focusing on, you know, really showing here a bunch of key goals here are some things that are not being funded and this is what they would cost. Some of those bigger questions that involve us and the mayor and everyone else, you know, maybe those are not able to be addressed, but I'm hoping that some of those one-time things around dive team and the drone team that really could improve your operational ability. And it seems mostly based on one-time costs that those are some things we might be able to move forward with much more quickly. So thank you. And I'm going to turn it over to Vice President Collins to take the chair, if that's all right with you. Thank you. And my apologies, Chief. Thank you to my colleagues.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole May 20 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present one absent the meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6pm in the City Council Chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George P. Hassett Drive Medford MA and via Zoom. action and discussion items. 25 039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting three. It will be the third preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 26 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present. Chevalier, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Library, Human Resources, Planning, Development and Sustainability, and the Liquor Commission. The police were on the agenda, but the chief is not available, so that has been moved to next Tuesday, the 27th. We'll be starting at 5.30. along with DPW and the schools. So with that, we will take Chevalier first, and I'll just read quickly. We had fiscal year 2025 budget, 32,000, fiscal 2026 budget proposed 32,640. And with that, we have Director Riggi, and I'm gonna ask you just to describe the budget, any changes, some fiscal 25 accomplishments, goals for next year, and if there are any key needs and priorities that aren't funded this year that you'd like to see funded in the future. And I will go to our Facilities Director, Paul Ringy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi. You brought up something that's a great note for everyone. We're talking about the general fund budget, but that's not all of the money that our different city departments and schools use. So thank you for mentioning what's going on with other funds from the state and casino, etc. Do we have any questions from members of the Council for Director Riggi about the Chevalier budget? Seeing none, do we have any questions from the public either in person or on Zoom about the Chevalier general fund budget? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Next up we have the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Office Budget. Director Nwaje is here with us on Zoom. Thank you for being here. We're making you a co-host. I think you had a presentation. You might want to share it. I'm seeing a thumbs up, so you'll be able to unmute and share your presentation, but I will just quickly read off We had a fiscal 25 budget of $118,502. A fiscal 26 proposed budget of $120,911. And this is an increase of $2,409. There's an increase in the permanent employees for a COLA increase and an increase of $1,000 in office supplies. And those are both fixed cost increases. With that, turning it over to Director Nwaje for the presentation and also, you know, the general prompt is just to talk about the budget change, any other details you might want to share about the budget, talk about any accomplishments of the previous year, goals for next year, and items that are key needs and priorities that were not funded this year that you'd like to see funded in future years. And with that, I'll turn it over to Director Nwaje.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Nwaje for the presentation. Do you have any questions for the Director about the budget for the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion? See no hands, I do have a couple of questions for you. Number one, I just wanted to thank you for the advocacy for the Disability Commission. That's much appreciated. I hope we can support that advocacy as well as part of our request for the budget. I did have a question around that and some other things. Is there any impact on your office of the uncertainty around any federal funding and programs or any outside grant funding?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then I have one more question after that. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council is our director knowledge I just had one. One and a half more questions. I just noticed the self-response on the demographic snapshot. Definitely, you know, we were missing a lot of men, we were missing a lot of police, fire, DPW, and I'm wondering, do we have any kind of strategy or thoughts on how to try to get a little bit more engagement from those areas in that survey?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. That was a thought that I had had as well. So great. Any further questions for Director Nwaje? Seeing none, Frances, thank you so much. Much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. Next, we will take up HR Workers' Comp. Sorry, Barbara. We'll get you out of here. Just really quickly, thanks for being here Director Crowley. Just going to go quickly through this we have HR and workers comp the budget for human resources fiscal 25 was 269 480. And for fiscal 26 it's proposed at 324 93 for an increase net increase of 51,013. which is pretty significant. The main thing are some fixed cost growth. There was an employee hired in fiscal 25, and the fiscal 25 budget was lower than the expected pay for that. There were also COLA and step increases, and inflationary costs for office supplies and advertising and recruitment. And there's a new expense called case management at $10,000. And that's explained as an amount that's added for various medical expenses for the city. And then we also have workers comp which is going up from 788,000 fiscal 25 to 928,000 fiscal 26 that's $140,000 or about 18%. So with that I will turn it over to you. to talk about the change in those two budgets, any other details you might want to share, talk about some of your accomplishments for the previous year, some goals for next year, and then what needs and priorities are not funded this year that we need to see funded in future years. And with that, I'll turn it over to our HR director.
[Zac Bears]: We might need to move you closer or move you further.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions?
[Zac Bears]: I hope so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, I have a couple. Give me a second here, get some feedback. Could you talk a little bit more about the case management line item?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Along those lines, do we expect a much smaller increase for workers' comp next year, or how much of the gap have we closed?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any way, I mean, this is supposed to be a form of insurance, right? Like, seems like we're paying a lot of money.
[Zac Bears]: Just in general, like their workers comp, like, you know, is there a better deal out there? Are we getting the best deal?
[Zac Bears]: What's the difference between 111F and the workers comps?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: So now it's everyone in the city is on the same.
[Zac Bears]: All right. OK. Two more things, just in general. seems like we've been able to fill more open positions than over the previous years.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Last question, classification and compensation study. What's the progress on that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you for that. In a final report, will we be able to see both the compensation elements as well as the new job descriptions? And that will be available to us. Great. And it sounds like if we're really lucky, January?
[Zac Bears]: Everyone's jockeying for position in these. I've already disappointed Barbara. So, you know, I don't even want to know what happened with Richly. But no, thank you. You know, I appreciate the hard work. Any further questions on our HR or worker's comments? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, library. We have director Barbara Kerr and we have Grace David from our trustees here and maybe lost a trustee. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: We gained one, we lost one.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm turning you down. We had a way up for Lisa. Okay, so you'll be good.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: We want to hear the stats. We love the stats. All right, I have what I have here. Alrighty. Library, Medford Public Library. We had from the general fund, subsidy general fund, fiscal 25, $2,247,934. We're looking at for fiscal 26, $2,324,029 for an increase of $76,095 or about 3%. And we have there, an increase of one position, it looks like, which is good, although I'm sure you'll tell me maybe that that's not coming from the general fund at all, or maybe it's a typo, I see. What position is it? It's a professional assistant, it says, that we're going from 14 to 15. Seems no one knows about that except for what's on the sheet. But we can come back to that. But as I said, there's a net increase of 76,095. Most of this is in our fixed cost growth, the vast majority, with step raises and COLA increases for permanent employees, an increase in rates for part-time employees, longevity and a sick leave buyback estimate for fiscal 26 retirements, contracted services increase for some stormable landscaping and other service costs. increase in the price of office supplies, increase in the price of cleaning supplies, an increase for the audiovisual budget, physical media being in high demand, and AV costs being cut last year or reduced from the initial proposal last year, $5,000 increase, for library books and periodicals, and then there's one new expense, continuing education, the PLA convention in 2026, the big national conference for public libraries, multiple staff are attending, so there's more expense. So with that, we have Director Kerr with us, and we're going to be The prompt is just three things, talking about your budget and what the change was, two, talking about accomplishments for the last year, goals for next year, and three, what are key needs and priorities that you'd like to see funded that we weren't able to fund this year?
[Zac Bears]: We've got to lead with that.
[Zac Bears]: Too excited about all the great things you're doing.
[Zac Bears]: I heard you took my microfilm.
[Zac Bears]: You remember, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: The budgets, please. The budgets.
[Zac Bears]: Will the maps go too?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I see everyone, you're all here on my board. I just wanted to say before we hear questions from councillors that it may be your last budget meeting, but we will have you back before you retire to celebrate the incredible work that you've done.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'd love to hear.
[Zac Bears]: I was thinking you could do a story for for every year of the decades of service that you devoted to the city and our community or something you know maybe not every year but that might be too too in depth too much work we know everyone's very busy up there but mostly I was saying that to say that you've devoted your life to this library and it's thriving and Thousands of people are deeply appreciative of that. So we will.
[Zac Bears]: And I have no hobbies. You've given a lot to the city, so we will celebrate you. You'll be back here, and you won't have to do a presentation for money.
[Zac Bears]: Unless you want to. You can write your own ticket. So with that, I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We're expecting to get back a lot closer. We can fund the part-time employees with this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Charlton William Bloomberg, Barbara Kerr, Metro Public Library. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: That's me.
[Zac Bears]: Not just recorded, it's broadcast.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't read it, but we are streaming on channel 22, channel 43, YouTube and medfordtv.org. And you can join by Zoom if you'd like. You can even call in and if you'd like to submit written comments, you can email. a her to be set mentor dash ma.gov and he'll forward them along. At least it's a funny last meeting.
[Zac Bears]: You did all right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any more questions for Director Kerr? We've seen them from the Council. Do we have any from members of the public? Or would the trustees like to say that we have a trustee coming up?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Grace. All right, seeing no further questions or comments on the library. Oh, David's coming up. All right. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any more questions or comments from the council, trustees, Director Kerr, or members of the public? Seeing none, I thank you all very much, and we'll keep fighting. We'll go now to Planning, Development, and Sustainability slash Boards and Commissions. We have our Director Alicia Hunt with us. And we have, we'll do PDS first then we can go through the commission budgets. But we're looking at fiscal 25 budgeted $819,207 fiscal 26 budgeted $917,163 for an increase of $97,956. No change in the number of positions on the services summary. The main increase is fixed cost growth, which is the staff planner salary coming off of ARPA. And three other employees shifted in percentages with funding. So they were added to the general fund and the COLA increases and step increases at $77,956. And then We have a new expense in professional technical expenses of 20,000 regarding continuation of the zoning work into fiscal 26. And an increase in legal fees since PDS is covering legal fees for the appeals to boards and for support for Medford Square. And I guess that's Medford Square RFP. Great. All right. And with that, I'll go to Director Hunt. We're going to ask you just if you want to talk about the specific budget change any more than that and the other details, talk about your accomplishments in fiscal 25, your goals for fiscal 26, and then what are some key needs and priorities that aren't funded this year that we would like to see funded in future years.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. Any further questions on the PDS core budget before we go into some of the commissions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll go to boards of commissions next to Bicycle Commission, no change. 1500, 1000 for public safety supplies, 1000 for travel conferences and training. Any further comments or questions by members of the Council on the Bicycle Commission? Seeing none, we will go next to, one second here, Zoning Board of Appeals, 12,500 in fiscal 25, 12,500 fiscal 26, no change. Any discussion or questions on the Zoning Board of Appeals? Maybe we could use this opportunity to talk about the difference between the Zoning Board and the Community Development Board a little bit. So the Zoning Board considers appeals of building department decisions.
[Zac Bears]: Where's the under construction?
[Zac Bears]: Community development board, fiscal 25 budget, 8,900, fiscal 26 proposed, 9,800. Looks like an increase in the stipends. I don't know if you want to speak to it.
[Zac Bears]: All right, next we have our Conservation Commission, fiscal 25 budget 7500, fiscal 26 budget 7500, no change.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Historic District Commission 5000 fiscal 25 5000 fiscal 26. Any questions? Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: That's historical commission. We'll get there next.
[Zac Bears]: Did I skip historical?
[Zac Bears]: I did. No, I did, I did skip this one, sorry. Historical commission or historic commission, 55, sorry, 35,000 fiscal 25, 35,000 fiscal 26, Councilor Kiley.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then historic district commission also no change. I think you've described both of them. No, it was at the end, I skipped over historic.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions on historic commission or historic district commission?
[Zac Bears]: And what are those?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Great. Well, thank you, Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: And we're on to the last. We have Chief Steph Mazarian to talk about the License Commission. We have a fiscal year 25 budget 5800, fiscal 26 proposed 5800, no change. Madam Chief of Staff, if you want to just tell us a little bit about what the License Commission does and what it's been doing and its goals for the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great and about a council is our.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Is there, and this is actually to my fellow Councilor, is there a, I was just actually looking up this exact same question. It looks like the special act that passed in 2012 said that they have to have a 50 seat minimum for restaurant liquor licenses. Did you talk to Sal about that at all?
[Zac Bears]: And this might be a question for Alicia as much as it is a question for you, Nina. In terms of bars, is that, do we allow that? Did we change the zoning to allow that? Or does Mrs. Murphy's technically serve food?
[Zac Bears]: And they're covered under special zoning definition here, too.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And just want to send thanks back. I know we're working. with the clerk's office and planning and Daria and the licensing commission on this whole question of getting into a good, better place on aligning our common mixtures licenses and the liquor license and the ABCC piece and everything else, and Councilor Lazzaro, thank you too. So thanks for that. Do we have any questions, further questions about the Liquor License Commission for the Chief of Staff? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public? Seeing no one in the chamber, no hands on Zoom, do we have a motion? Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 9th regular meeting Medford City Council may 13 2025 is called order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan, Vice President Collins, present.
[Zac Bears]: And just to note, Councilor Leming is absent due to his military service. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25062 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution in memory of Mr. William Shane Horty. Whereas the Medford City Council deeply mourns the passing of Mr. William Shane Horty, a lifelong resident of the city of Medford who passed away on March 10th, 2025 at the age of 70. And whereas Mr. Horty was born August 3rd, 1954 in Vacaville, California, the beloved son of the late Charles L. and Carol L. Spencer Horty, and later made Medford his lifelong home. And whereas Shane graduated from Medford High School and went on to honorably serve his country as a member of the United States Marine Corps. And whereas Mr. Horty dedicated over 30 years of honorable and selfless service to the city of Medford as a firefighter serving with courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to public safety. And whereas Shane remained a proud and active member of the Medford Fire Department community long into his retirement, frequently visiting his former engine six station and staying connected with his fellow firefighters. And whereas Shane leaves behind a legacy of love, service, and deep-rooted community ties survived by his loving wife, Mary Kelly Horty, daughter Kelly M and her husband Chris J Jenke, granddaughter Casey K Jenke, sister Dawn Foley, brother Mark Horty and his wife Maureen and many nieces and nephews. Now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council formally extends its deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of Mr. William Shane Horty and expresses his profound gratitude for his service, friendship and lasting impact on the City of Medford and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Horty family as a token of the city's respect and admiration. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 25076 offered by President Bayer's Resolution to Recognize Food Allergy Awareness Week. Whereas more than 33 million Americans have food allergies, nearly 6 million are children under the age of 18. Whereas research shows that the prevalence of a food allergy is increasing among children and adults. Whereas nine foods cause the majority of all food allergy reactions in the United States, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, and sesame. Food allergy reactions can range from mild symptoms to severe reactions, such as anaphylaxis, whereas anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death, whereas every 10 seconds, food allergy sends a patient to the emergency room. Reactions typically occur when an individual unknowingly eats food containing an ingredient to which they are allergic, whereas emergency medical treatment for severe allergic reactions to food has increased by 377% in only a decade, Whereas childhood food allergies cost us families $34 billion each year, whereas the food allergy research and education is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and the health of individuals with food allergies, and to providing them hope to the promise of new treatments be resolved by the Medford City Council that we recognize may 11 to 17 2025 as food allergy awareness week in the city of Medford. and that we encourage the residents of Medford to increase their understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis. Be it resolved that we request that the mayor issue a proclamation to the same effect. And just to note, I believe the mayor did issue that proclamation. This was my item, just wanted to put it forward. That's an important issue and we often recognize different things, awareness weeks for different things here in this chamber. So the resolution otherwise speaks for itself. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to say on the matter? Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Records, the tabled records of the meeting of April 8th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in favor of one absent, the motion passes. The records of the meeting of April 29th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Leming, whereas he notified that he'd be absent, unless you wanted to say something. Okay. He looked at me like he wanted to say something. I did review them. I found them in order. If someone wants to move approval or had other comments on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, is there a motion to join? A motion to join by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 25039, which was our committee of the whole on April 29th, April 30th, and May 6th. These were budget meetings when we heard preliminary budget presentations from several departments. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, planning and permitting committee, April 30th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming with Resident Services and Public Engagement. Is Councilor Tseng the vice chair of that committee?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And the clerk has confirmed you've got them all right. 24057 offered by Councilor Lazzaro public health and community safety committee may 7 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the joint committee report seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The committee reports are approved. Refer to committee for further discussion. Resolution to attend Veterans Department event as listening session by Councilor Lazzaro. 25073, be it resolved that a city councilor join the Medford Veterans Services Director Veronica Shaw at the Veterans Coffee and Cookies Hour as a listening session to hear directly from Medford veterans and to answer questions, be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to refer to Resident Services.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to committee by Councilor Lazzaro, second, oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll take that also as a second of the motion. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25074 offered by Councilor Callahan, resolution to invite the Office of Prevention Outreach to a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting Whereas the Office of Prevention and Outreach offers many much-needed services to our community that residents may not know about. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite the Office of Prevention and Outreach staff to join us at a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting on a Wednesday night to inform the City Council and the public about their services. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's an affirmative one absent the motion passes. Hearings 25036 petition to amend special permit 282 Mystic Avenue. Public hearing notice. City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th. 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F Alden Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P Hassett Drive Medford Massachusetts relative to an amendment requested by clear channel outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 mystic have Medford Massachusetts or 2155 the petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit. The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk from 103 Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council signed Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. We have continued this twice now, but I will reopen the public hearing, continued from April 8th and April 29th. Do we have a representative of the petitioner from Clear Channel present? Please raise your hand on Zoom or let us know if you're in the chamber. Not seeing a representative of Clear Channel. Councilor Scripple, I'm guessing they didn't contact you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. But if the petition is not here and move to table again, keep it on file on the motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli and request review by the city solicitor seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The public hearing is continued to May 27th and we will request review by the solicitor. The public hearing is temporarily closed. petitions presentations and similar papers, 25072 petition for an amendment to a common victual or license the establishment. One second here. petition to the Honorable City Council Councilors the undersigned respected request amendment for operating hours on the common victuals license. All days, Sunday through Saturday, or Monday through Saturday. Brief explanation, we would like to extend our license to 1 a.m. We have events that go into a later hour and don't want to end early, sports games, et cetera. Business name, The Establishment Restaurant. Business address, 175 Rivers Edge Drive. And business owner, Matthew Greer II. Do we have the petitioner present? And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli in the meantime.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is the petition to him and could you raise your hand on zoom, Matthew Greer, or a representative for the establishment.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not seeing them present.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30-60-90 day review, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this? Any objections or discussion? Seeing none, on the motion as seconded, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes motions orders and resolutions to 4069 offered by Councilor Tseng amendment to the Human Rights Commission, enabling ordinance. Motion to waive the reading in favor of a summary by the proponent. On the motion of Councilor Tseng the way of the reading seconded by seconded by Council is our own.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And then what was the language strike in 5626B1?
[Zac Bears]: Advise the city, got it. I just have one question on your amendment. Yes. In 62 it says there's 11 members.
[Zac Bears]: And then you named eight for the staggered terms. My math.
[Zac Bears]: All right, just make sure that gets corrected and what we send to the clerk as well.
[Zac Bears]: All right, and on the process, this was in resident services? Yes, this is in resident services. And how many meetings did you have on it?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading as amended, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussions by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Zang, just one other question. Did we strike all of D2 or just—okay. Great. And could you, in addition to sending the amendments, could you send a clean copy in a Word document? Thank you, just for the advertising. Any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion? Seeing none, we will go to any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom. You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes. I see on Zoom, you have me near, give me one moment.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I'm going to recognize you and please name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Muneer. We will go now to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? Or is that the main question?
[Zac Bears]: recognize you for, well, actually I have to go back to Jennifer and then we'll come back to you. Jennifer, name and address, record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I gotta go jump over you to Gaston and then come back to you. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we'll go back for a minute and then we'll, Justin, I hope is writing everything down. We'll answer all the questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Barry and then I'll go to Councilor Seidert. Barry, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 56D6D.
[Zac Bears]: D2, so under research and reporting educational data such as school discipline rates and dropout rates from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education metrics on IEPs.
[Zac Bears]: It's D2. It's one page further. So it wasn't B2, the periodic.
[Zac Bears]: I was not able to hear that. 25066B, the main section. Instead of reading the city administration and the public school system, it would just read the city.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng on the questions.
[Zac Bears]: So there was a further amendment to add language in 5066D regarding timeliness of reporting? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And just a clarifying question. It sounds like staff. The mayor shall sign a city council liaison. She asked the Councilor to do it, obligated to do it. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: They would not be obligated.
[Zac Bears]: So it could be a resolution to delegate that to someone. I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you're putting that in to allow city councillors to be considered.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council on the amended amendment?
[Zac Bears]: Section 50-67? Yeah. All right. And please send the amendments on a clean copy. Yes. I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp, name and address for the record. Steve, you have three minutes. I'm going to unmute you, and I'll restart the timer.
[Zac Bears]: I do not. I mean, I don't know if any city commissions are not staffed currently. I don't, I certainly can say there's no city commission staffed by city council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm seeing no discussion members of the public. We do have a motion from Councilor Tseng as amended to approve as amended by Councilor Tseng, is there a second on the motion? On the second by council Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: For approval for first reading as amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25.075 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, Medford Square District and West Medford Square District from the Community Development Board. This was referred from the planning and permitting committee to our regular meeting the initial proposal. The process from here is that the council is obligated to refer zoning amendments, rightfully presented zoning amendments such as this one to the community development board. The community development board will then hold a public hearing on the matter. They may choose to make recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing on the matter and consider any proposed recommendations from the community development board And then after the public hearing of the council is concluded, the council would vote to adopt or reject. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The proposal is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the Mayor, 25077, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Manfred Square parking lot development RFP evaluation committee update. I know that Director Hunt was stuck in a Traffic Commission meeting. We do have Economic Development Director Sal DeStefano with us. I see several PDS folks in here. Do we know where Alicia Hunt is? Still in Traffic Commission.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to table till later in the meeting by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Yeah. Oh, I already called the roll though. We do have to vote. I'm serious.
[Zac Bears]: No. One in the affirmative, five in the negative, one absent. Motion fails. Is she coming down here? Okay. Well, I can just get us a little bit of preview damping while we get there. So the update that we're receiving from the RFP Evaluation Committee tonight is regarding the awarding of the proposal submitted by transom. So we do have here from the mayor, dear President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, the evaluation for the request for proposals RFP for lease and development of real property has completed its review and evaluation work. I respectfully request and recommend that council permit a presentation to be made to your honorable body on the proposals received the evaluation process and the committee's vote for the preferred developer director planning development and sustainability Alicia will be present at your meeting to present on behalf of the committee thank you for your kind attention to this matter sincerely Brianna Lugo-Curtin, Mayor. We, the city, has had several plans on Medford Square over the past 20 years. All of them have talked about activating these surface lots behind and adjacent to City Hall. And last fall, an RFP was drafted regarding those lots, requesting that proponents the City of Toronto. Um submit proposals for the redevelopment of those lots based on a number of conditions. The city did receive two proposals. There's an evaluation committee of which I was a non voting member. The mayor was a non voting member. Um and city staff and our Chamber of Commerce president were voting members that the two proponents, and then eventually, after review, and there's also a scoring sheet based on a bunch of objective criteria, the committee made a recommendation to award the proposal submitted by transom, and Director Hunt is here to share a little bit more about that. The next steps from here are that now the city will be able to enter into negotiations with the proponent. The proposal is a starting point, not a final product, so city staff working with the proponent will be able to tune that proposal, hopefully make some changes that I know the city has wanted to make. And then once a final agreement has been drafted, the City Council will need to vote to approve the lease agreement for the city-owned land that these new developments would sit on. And with that, I think I provided some useful information and used the time well. Could we allow Director Hunt to share her screen? I'll recognize the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, it didn't change anything for us. There's a little thing in the bottom right, just a little paper.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Does that do anything? No. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any tips?
[Zac Bears]: We do have our Medford Community Media Director, Kevin Harrington, to help out.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can promise that. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Do we have questions or comments from members of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I could really quickly to Councilor Scarpelli's point, something that, you know, having talked in the council in general and looked at the plans and worked with the team, in the RFP before we got proposals to the request for proposals, we did include some additional language around the city owned parking lots behind the strip along Riverside Avenue and also the City Hall property itself to see if maybe we could encourage some potential expansion and renovation of this building. And we spoke with Atrius Health to see if we could leverage the parking garage. And we spoke with Hamilton, well, not me, but you spoke with Hamilton companies about all of the property that they own on Riverside. So those were included in the process. And I think, at least for me, as I continue to participate in the process, going back at bites at those apples and really trying to see if we can get them on board is going to be a priority for me. And Davis had also done some preliminary designs on potentially some upgrades to this building, which I think would be really great that maybe we could try to incorporate as well. So I just wanted to put all of that out there that those were some things that I raised as part of the process that are still going to be a priority for me. But thank you for giving me time and Director Hunt, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from members of the council? I just wanted to note along those points, too, that I think the flip side of some of this is How much bigger do certain elements of the project get to allow for more community benefits? And also, what is the financing capacity of the entity that we're working with? And so those are two of the other things that we're working through.
[Zac Bears]: A restaurant. A restaurant. A fully functioning restaurant.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's the five over two and even Davis, they proposed three, five over twos, but didn't go above that, even though Hyatt Place is obviously taller and the Medford Housing Authority buildings are obviously taller. And even the zoning we are gonna pass is gonna allow more in those spaces or zoning that's been proposed is allowing that. So, yeah, it's a tough, tough one. Councilor Lazzarodo and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: never a bad tenant until they need a bailout.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you all. Yeah. And I think, you know, we're gonna try to go as big as we can and make sure that whatever we do either enables some of the longer term things that we talked about, or at least doesn't block them and sets us up for those future discussions so I'm really looking forward to continuing to work on that with you guys. We'll have another update for the council, hopefully, you know, next few months.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And there's a motion from councils are to receive and place on file seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Do we have any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public, either in person or raise your hand on zoom. If one person on zoom. Marine, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The units are all rentals and the proposal was 20% of the units affordable at 80% AMI, but that's not the final answer. And there's either potential for more units, you know, if it's a bigger project, maybe more units at that level, or maybe a change in the distribution of the affordability requirements. I don't know if you have anything more on that, Director Hunt. Great. Nope, we're good. Any more questions, Marie, on that?
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. So sorry to use that term. 80% of the area median income, and that changes depending on the household size and it looks like Director Hunt. And it also changes every year. But Director Hunt has the income and then just before you read the income I believe it's the way it works is it's, it can be a maximum of 30% of your income but I'll just let you.
[Zac Bears]: I think, Marie, to your larger question, like the question of, you know, what is something that a person can afford to rent is part of the discussion of like, well, 80% of AMI is very high. Should we look at 50% of AMI or 30% of AMI and that would pretty significantly reduce the deed restricted rent amounts? The problem is that it also reduces the revenue and that reduces the ability to finance the project. And because of how you know we're doing this, we're getting public benefits because we're leasing the land. And that is a portion of the cost, but a huge portion of the cost of housing is the construction cost and the state does not Certainly, the federal government and state government do not provide money for us to do that. They also don't allow cities to, for example, take out bonds to fund the construction of housing. And that could, you know, that maybe could be a choice that the city could say, if that was an option afforded to us, we could maybe try to be a part of financing this project, but the state doesn't allow us to do that. So we're kind of, you know, reliant, again, around financing issues here.
[Zac Bears]: It's definitely going to be part of the conversation. The lease payment, I think, proposed by Transom is about a million dollars a year.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think we'll have to look at the I mean, we could there's a financial proposal as part of the request for proposal. We're not doing this to give the developer a windfall like that's not the intent of this. But the purchase cost of the land versus the least cost of the land versus like as a proportion of the cost of the project is smaller than you would think the land is not like half the cost of the project. the construction costs are the vast majority of the costs, at least from the financial point of view.
[Zac Bears]: It is 25%, you know, it's 20% affordable. It's 25% more affordable units that are required by the inclusionary zoning. We've been going back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just, I do want to let some other people go, Marie, and I'm always happy to, I'm always happy to talk about it more. And I think just the thing I would say is the affordable housing piece was a big component of the proposal. It's going to be a big proponent, like component of, the negotiation, and we're gonna do our best as part of the... I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Paul Garrity. Paul, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can go to a director, but there is a financing plan. That's part of the proposal. It outlines in pretty significant detail what the proponent expects to receive in rents, both from the affordable units and the non-affordable units, the market rate units, how those are coming in over time. There is a, and it goes out at least 30 years, I think longer than that. I don't know if you wanna talk a little bit more about the specific financial proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I mean, I think the easiest answer to the question on the financing plan is if the developer can, I mean, subject to having the equity and the banks, you know, the financing to do it, if the developer can build more market rate units and they can provide more public benefits, whether that's more affordable units or other public benefits or affordable units at a deeper level of affordability. But that's kind of the, we're still in the really tough Catch-22 situation here where This is privately financed and it's privately financed by private finance institutions that are seeking a profit. It is not a publicly financed project. By leasing the land, we're getting some more public benefit because of how we're doing it and because we are a stakeholder. But it's different than, say, if we were having a nonprofit developer trying to help us finance this and having the money for it or especially if there was government financing available, public financing or funding available, that would be a completely different conversation. So it's essentially a version of what we do with our inclusionary zoning on private land, but just somewhat improved in a sense because it's also a lease of this public land. I don't know if you wanna add to that at all. Okay, Paul, I'm just gonna go to Josh a little.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the developer's financing plan. So if they can have more affordable housing, you know, if they can get the equity to do that, then more affordable units or units at a deeper affordability or both would be on the table. I'm gonna go to Joshua. Joshua. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that everyone. Any further public comment? I'll go to direct to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: They are significantly below market rate for new construction.
[Zac Bears]: I think a lot of people say affordable they say small a affordable. And this is big a affordable it's legally, the definition of subsidized housing inventory affordable.
[Zac Bears]: And we did solicit a lot of different bids, you know, if a nonprofit housing developer had bid on this would be in a different conversation probably because it's probably who he would have gone with.
[Zac Bears]: And, you know, I mean, I think, right, you're, you're completely right. And Marie's completely right. And others are completely right that, like, the market has failed, and the government is not intervening in the failure of the market. And then the question is, do you do nothing and hope that a different government will set different rules? Like, how much do you want to try to wait out like the public housing renaissance and the social housing renaissance in this country? Or do you try to preserve as much existing naturally affordable housing as you can by at least trying to meet market demand. And I think we're in a, in a difficult situation with that so like I completely agree. And it's, as for me, many, you know, five years up here. really hard that these kinds of decisions are put on us at this level of government because the state and federal government are completely ignoring and absent and in some cases making the situation a lot worse. That's why I brought up like the if the state just allowed like us to use municipal bond rates that would open up some financing options here even if it wasn't like us actually paying back the bonds themselves just if the city could help finance it at those rates, right? Like that would be a game changer versus like these guys had to go out and find $200 million in financing at the current rates. So it's tough and it's hard. There's one more comment. Molly, could you start your video before I let you speak? All right, you seem to be a real person. You're upside down, but I trust you're not gonna zoom on me. Molly, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you can now, yes, that was just a verification.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Molly. And I know that's going to be an issue that we try to balance as well as part of the project. Do you have anything more you want to add on that, Director Hunt?
[Zac Bears]: We would love some big, beautiful steel buildings. I can tell you that. Yes. All right, we had a motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Nazaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I don't have it. If you can share it with me, if you share with the clerk, actually. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes 25078 amendments to the parking ordinance section 78 173. I don't know, Director Hunter you on any of this or. Okay, it's fine. So as a member of the traffic commission. Yeah, so we had a there was a committee of the whole meeting, the Chief of Staff talked about it. This is a proposal to repeal an ordinance section on municipal employee and municipal business parking because the Traffic Commission is now putting in regulations around municipal parking to address the parking shortage at City Hall and people parking at City Hall for non-municipal business. And the request is to repeal this ordinance so that there's no conflict between the Traffic Commission regulations and the city ordinance. Is there anything else you'd want to add on that, Alicia?
[Zac Bears]: And I know that chief, I think the chief of staff and the parking director talked about this with folks in committee the whole, I wasn't able to attend that meeting. It's my first miss this year, but I wasn't able to be there. Is there anything else that folks who were at that meeting want to add about the proposal or anything that I missed from the discussion at that meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's, it's actually in here pretty specifically about. The above changes allow the city to update the signage at City Hall and enforce parking restrictions. Currently, we have commuters who are parking in the lot and using the bus or walking over to Harvard Vanguard. So they're not using the Harvard Vanguard lot and they're not using the commuter lot. They're using City Hall and it's making it hard for employees and people who want to do business at City Hall to do business. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Paris? Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25079, appropriation of free cash for Carr Park. Let's take both of you, let's talk about it all at once, even though there's two papers for Carr Park. I'm guessing it's for the same reason. So we have an appropriation of free cash and a CPC appropriation for Carr Park. And then Teresa will just do the community garden piece when. Yeah. All right. So we have from the mayor, a request for 65,000 contingency funding fees to a car park renovation. And this is a funding match with the CPA is also a funding match so I'll go to a planner central.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? I just have one. What was the contingency percentage? If we didn't, like, if we didn't approve this, what was the contingency?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: 0.09%. So a lot less than that 2.3 to 4, 2.6.
[Zac Bears]: And if the contingency funds aren't used, then they go back to the source?
[Zac Bears]: And in this case, would they go evenly back to the source or have you talked about that?
[Zac Bears]: So don't dig up any more problems.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing no hands in person or on Zoom, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. It was a dead tie and I was looking at Councilor Lazzaro, which felt unfair. So motion to approve the free cash appropriation by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 vote and one absent, the motion passes. And if you want to stick around for the next, you know, we'll happily entertain you.
[Zac Bears]: Not when we're calling the roll, I'll tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: Also the site of the former carnival.
[Zac Bears]: Too long. Councilor Callahan, and then we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to note, these were both unanimous votes of the CPC to recommend and the conditions you mentioned about the community garden were mentioned here.
[Zac Bears]: Great, I just have one question actually for Amanda, which is kind of why I asked you to stay, I'm so sorry. And it's, you don't need to answer it for too long. Do you think that the fact that those courts were buried is the reason that like the courts above ended up becoming like cracked and broken and stuff?
[Zac Bears]: And that's something you're accounting for in this project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I appreciate that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the CPC appropriation request seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent.
[Zac Bears]: Six of the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Saw which way that one was going. Thanks you guys. Great. It's like a first term trigger of some kind. I think you were the last in the alphabet at the time. Councilor Schiarpelli. 25081 submitted by the mayor approval for a lease purchasing finance agreement for the school security upgrades. We do have our assistant superintendent, Peter Cushing with us. He's been with us all night. Thank you, Peter for sticking with us. And this is on the agenda because We approved the funding for this, a free cash appropriation. And it turns out there's a state law that requires us to also for specifically for lease to own agreements, we have to pass a separate thing. So I'll go to Peter to explain that a little more.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Peter. And just to note the specific language, dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to authorize a lease purchase financing agreement under Chapter 44 of Section 21C of the General Laws for the acquisition of security equipment upgrades for Medford Public School buildings for which an appropriation was approved. By vote of the city council on April 29 2025 council paper number 25 066 the term of such agreement not to exceed five years and further that the school committee shall be authorized to enter into such agreement and any related documents on behalf of the city. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters respectfully submitted brand Lungo-Koehn mayor. So that is the item before us. Do we have any comments or questions on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any public discussion? Sure. On this. Okay. I assume you had a study depending on 4421 C. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Public participation to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertabase at medford-ma.gov. We did have a paper from Anne Driscoll. Do we have Anne on the meeting? Anne, I don't think you're here in person. Anne, are you on Zoom? Is there a motion to... Yeah, what do you think? Can we just carry it over? We're just gonna carry it over. So we can just go to open public participation, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Not the tone it down, but the swear words.
[Zac Bears]: Kevin's gonna have to.
[Zac Bears]: We're a little bit over. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate the comment. I can just say As one Councilor, I have been communicating a similar message to the mayor and the chief of police, especially last week when we had federal masks, unidentified federal agents in the city, intimidating the public. And when we have this abuse of power and intimidation and essentially a form of extortion as well to extort our compliance with illegality, I don't think our response can be We can't do anything about it. I personally received communications from people asking me are, are these, who are these people, is there a criminal gang in my neighborhood. you know, and it's people are very, people are very scared. So I think and what we saw in Worcester last week, and how Worcester police handled that abhorrently, and is now pushing what I consider to be a pretty reactionary administration in the city of Worcester to consider a city policy about what the city will do in response to this. I think for folks who have said that they are on board with this, I think we need to be doing the same and have a very clear policy about this, how the city responds to federal intimidation and abuse of power, as well as informing the public about it. And I know that public health and community safety brought up some of these concerns last week. I don't know if you guys want to add anything. I see Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, I'm gonna watch the recording, see what was said, but what really frustrated me about what happened in Worcester, what I don't wanna see happen here is local police functionally being used to facilitate and protect people executing legally dubious or illegal orders. I think that's a serious, I think that's maybe a gap in the non-cooperation agreement that we have right now. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we do have one item under unfinished business eligible for third reading. Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25-053 from the table and approve for third reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. The gender affirming care and reproductive care ordinance. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Takes the affirmative. What absent the motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Any further discussion or is there a motion? on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to a turn seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Hi there. Thanks for the presentation. I think it looks really great. Just two questions. One on the Broadway corridor. I know we have the five plus two. I'm wondering if we want to, I mean, I can see it both ways. So just going to put out there may be a discussion of like, if we want to align it with the Somerville, if Somerville intends, and that's maybe a communication we should have with them to go to the six that's in the recommendations from the kind of joint research about because all of those lots are split between both cities. I just want to make sure we align with them. Uh, and their intent, I, I kind of see it both ways. Like, I like the idea of the 5 plus 2, because then if they want to go to 6, then there's incentive. So, it's not that it's not aligned in that sense. It's just that there's more community benefit from the alignment. So. I can stick there, but also. If the folks are just going to go to the buy, right? I think that's an important discussion for us to have. And I just wonder about the alignment on the dimensionals to, you know, I don't know what they're intending over there. Um, if they're going to keep this same dimensionals, generally, is there for district? Um. So, just some thoughts on that. I think that's just an added level of. Complexity because of the coordination with the planning department. Um, and then on the neighborhood nodes hubs, whatever we want to end up calling them. I would lean towards node over hub because I don't know that they will be hubs in practice. I just think there's kind of different implications. Hub implies a level of traffic and gathering that maybe isn't going to end up being there, kind of to Councilor Callaghan's point, like it really is a foot traffic oriented a place for people to come and get some basic commercial services close to them but not necessarily a place where we intend to have big gatherings so it's just like totally word semantic and I know I'm just kind of going into that but that has been a part of I think our conversation and this whole process is how do we pick words that residents and property owners and people reading our zoning understand what they mean. So just a thought on that. But I am really interested in the different options around the base district versus the citywide overlay versus the site-specific overlay. And I'm wondering, you know, I'm really wondering how what you talked about, Paola, with the characteristics element, like how that constrains or allows, you know, in both ways, what can go where? Because I really think there are a lot of places that, you know, either pre zoning or pre the 60s zoning, like have these kinds of things. And then the zoning made them nonconforming. And those are the places where I think focusing the nodes discussion really works because we actually have, you know, I think we should identify if there are neighborhoods where that's really not something that happened and make sure that we don't leave them out. But I also think for the neighborhoods where it does exist, like that's where we should focus the nodes and. And I just wonder, of those three options, which of those allows us to do the most and like I'm not, I think the base district thing I don't want to have a million little base districts everywhere like I think that's an option that just makes things complicated. But then I worry on the overlay does the city wide thing, maybe. Expand this into places where it doesn't really make sense. Um, just because of how the characteristics conversation works. So. It pushes me into kind of the site specific overlay. Idea, um, but that also creates, you know. I basically, I'm saying, I think the overlay makes more sense than the base districts. But I wonder how does the city wide versus the site specific. Make sure that these are in the targeted places we want and then if we go site specific, what's our process going to be for identifying especially places that neighborhoods. Where we don't have this existing type of infrastructure. And, you know, community infrastructure, I mean. How are we going to go about that? So that's just kind of if we really think that the citywide with the constraints basically means that these are mostly going to be in the same types of places that we have those existing uses and things now, that's great. And if we can see how that works, that makes sense to me. But then if it's not, then I think we have to look at the site specific just to make sure, you know, there's not a weird lot or a few weird lots in certain parts of the city that would end up having this kind of thing allowed on them and then actually it doesn't make sense for whatever reason. The street can't handle it, or it's actually really close to something else. Like there's just some weird externalities. I'm sure in practice, even if we did it, like people are in the market and property owners aren't going to build things that don't make sense in some sense. I mean, I don't think that's a guarantee, but I don't think they're going to put like a, you know, convenience store in the middle of the Brooks estate or something. Right. That doesn't make any sense. Um, But I just worry that there's kind of an externality there depending on which direction we go. So I'd love to interrogate and talk about that, the model a little bit more and what approach makes the most sense. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Those are the two options. It's, it can either lay over a specific area or it could be everywhere. You have a citywide overlay district. So it overlays everywhere. And that's like an example of like, Some cities have created a citywide affordable housing overlay where it's like, regardless of district, if you want to build affordable housing, you get this, you know, 100% affordable housing, for example, you get this, but Paula can probably say more.
[Zac Bears]: Apologistic clarify if you on the interactive map, you can see street names, right? So that's
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: 9th regular meeting, Medford City Council, May 13th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Present. Please rise to salute the flag. 6 present, 1 absent. Please rise to salute the flag. And just to note, Councilor Leming is absent due to his military service. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25062, offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution in memory of Mr. William Shane Horty. Whereas the Medford City Council deeply mourns the passing of Mr. William Shane Horty, a lifelong resident of the city of Medford who passed away on March 10th, 2025 at the age of 70. And whereas Mr. Horty was born August 3rd, 1954 in Vacaville, California, the beloved son of the late Charles L. and Carol L. Spencer Horty, and later made Medford his lifelong home. And whereas Shane graduated from Medford High School and went on to honorably serve his country as a member of the United States Marine Corps. And whereas Mr. Horty dedicated over 30 years of honorable and selfless service to the city of Medford as a firefighter, serving with courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to public safety. And whereas Shane remained a proud and active member of the Medford Fire Department community long into his retirement, frequently visiting his former Engine 6 station and staying connected with his fellow firefighters. And whereas Shane leaves behind a legacy of love, service, and deep-rooted community ties, survived by his loving wife, Mary Kelly Horty, daughter Kelly M and her husband Chris J Jenke, granddaughter Casey K Jenke, sister Dawn Foley, brother Mark Horty and his wife Maureen and many nieces and nephews. Now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council formally extends its deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of Mr. William Shane Horty and expresses his profound gratitude for his service, friendship and lasting impact on the City of Medford. and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Horty family as a token of the City's respect and admiration. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 2-5-0-7-6 offered by President Bayer's resolution to recognize Food Allergy Awareness Week. Whereas more than 33 million Americans have food allergies, nearly 6 million are children under the age of 18. Whereas research shows that the prevalence of the food allergy is increasing among children and adults. Whereas nine foods cause the majority of all food allergy reactions in the United States, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, and sesame. Food allergy reactions can range from mild symptoms to severe reactions such as anaphylaxis. Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Whereas every 10 seconds food allergy sends a patient to the emergency room, reactions typically occur when an individual unknowingly eats food containing an ingredient to which they are allergic. Whereas emergency medical treatment for severe allergic reactions to food has increased by 377% in only a decade. whereas childhood food allergies cost US families $34 billion each year, whereas the Food Allergy Research and Education is a national non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and the health of individuals with food allergies, and to providing them hope through the promise of new treatments, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we recognize May 11th to 17th, 2025 as Food Allergy Awareness Week in the City of Medford, and that we encourage the residents of Medford to increase their understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis. be it resolved that we request that the mayor issue a proclamation to the same effect. And just to note, I believe the mayor did issue that proclamation. This was my item, just wanted to put it forward. That's an important issue and we often recognize different things, awareness weeks for different things here in this chamber. So the resolution otherwise speaks for itself. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to say on the matter? Is there a motion on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Records, the tabled records of the meeting of April 8th, 2025 are passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. The records of the meeting of April 29th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Leming, whereas he notified that he'd be absent, unless you wanted to say something? Okay, you looked at me like you want to say something. I did review them. I found them in order. If someone wants to move approval or had other comments on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, is there a motion to join? Motion to join by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 25039, which was our committee of the whole on April 29th, April 30th, and May 6th. These were budget meetings when we heard preliminary budget presentations from several departments. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, April 30th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming was Resident Services and Public Engagement. Is Councilor Tsengivarius chair of that committee?
[Zac Bears]: Or is it Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that. I can't remember. We have 24069, 24354 and 25041. All right, Councilor Sen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And the clerk has confirmed you got them all right. public health and community safety. 24 057 offered by Councilor Lazzaro Public Health and Community Safety Committee May 7th 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the joint committee report seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent. The committee reports are approved. Refer to committee for further discussion. Resolution to attend Veterans Department event as listening session be it received by Councilor Lazzaro. to the resolution. 25 073 be it resolved that a city councillor joined them at Bedford Veterans Services director Veronica shot at the veterans coffee and cookies our as a listening session to hear directly from Metro veterans and to answer questions being further resolve of this resolution be referred to the resident services and public engagement
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to committee by Council is our second. Oh, sorry, Council.
[Zac Bears]: I'll take that also as a second of the motion. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25074 offered by Councilor Callahan, resolution to invite the office of prevention outreach to a resident services and public engagement committee meeting where as the Office of Prevention and Outreach offers many much-needed services to our community that residents may not know about. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite the Office of Prevention and Outreach staff to join us at a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting on a Wednesday night to inform the City Council and the public about their services. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Hearings 25036 petition to amend special permit 282 Mystic Avenue. Public hearing notice. City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th. 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F Alden Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P Hassett Drive Medford Massachusetts relative to an amendment requested by Clear Channel Outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 Mystic Ave Medford Massachusetts 02155. The petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the City Clerk, Room 103, Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council, signed, Adam L. Hurtubise, City Clerk. We have continued this twice now, but I will reopen the public hearing from continued from April 8th and April 29th. Do we have a representative of the petitioner from Clear Channel present? Please raise your hand on Zoom or let us know if you're in the chamber. Not seeing a representative of Clear Channel. Councilor Stroud, I'm guessing they didn't contact you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli and request review by the city solicitor, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative, one absent. The public hearing is continued to May 27th and we will request review by the solicitor. The public hearing is temporarily closed. Petitions, presentations and similar papers. 25072 petition for an amendment to a common Vixler license, the establishment. One second here. Petition to the Honourable City Council. Councilors, the undersigned respectfully request an amendment for our operating hours on the common Vixler's license. All days, Sunday through Saturday or Monday through Saturday. Brief explanation, we would like to extend our license to 1 a.m. We have events that go into a later hour and don't want to end early, sports games, et cetera. Business name, The Establishment Restaurant. Business address, 175 Rivers Edge Drive. And business owner, Matthew Greer II. Do we have the petitioner present? And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli in the meantime. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Right, right.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see them. Could you raise your hand on Zoom, Matthew Greer, or a representative for the establishment?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not seeing them present.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30, 60, 90 day review, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this? Any objections or discussion? Seeing none, on the motion as seconded, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions. 24069 offered by Councilor Tseng, amendment to the human rights commission, enabling ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favor of a summary by the proponent on the motion of Councilor Tseng to waive the reading seconded by? seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Advise the city. Got it. I just have one question on your amendment.
[Zac Bears]: In 62, it says there's 11 members. Yes. And then you named eight for the staggered terms.
[Zac Bears]: Three, four, four. All right. All right. Just make sure that gets corrected when we send it to the clerk as well.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, yeah. All right, and on the process, this was in resident services? Yes, this is in resident services. And how many meetings did you have on it?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading as amended, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussions by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng just one other question. Did we strike all of 52 or just okay? Um Great. And could you in addition to sending the amendments? Can you send a clean copy in a word document? Thank you. Just for the advertising. Any further discussion by members of the council on the motion? Seeing none, we will go to any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom. You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes. I see on Zoom, we have Munir. Give me one moment.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'm going to recognize you and please name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Muneer. We will go now to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: I recognize you for well, actually, I have to go back to Jennifer and then we'll come back to you. Jennifer, name and address record of three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I gotta go jump over you to Gaston and then come back to you. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. And we'll go back for a minute, and then we'll, Justin, I hope, is writing everything down, and we'll answer all the questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Barry and then I'll go to- Barry, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Is that correct? 56D6D.
[Zac Bears]: D2, so under research and reporting educational data such as school discipline rates and dropout rates from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education metrics on IEPs.
[Zac Bears]: It's d two. It's 11 page further. So it wasn't. It wasn't B to the period.
[Zac Bears]: 2 50 66 be the main section. Instead of reading the city administration on the public school system, it would just read the city.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks very much. Councilor Tseng on the questions.
[Zac Bears]: So there was a further amendment to add language in 506060 regarding timeliness of reporting? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And just a clarifying question, it sounds like staff the mayor shall sign a city council liaison. She asked the Councilor to do it, but not obligated to do it. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right, so they would not be obligated. They would not be obligated.
[Zac Bears]: So it could be a resolution to delegate that to someone. I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you're putting that in to allow City Councilors to be considered. Yes, yes, exactly, exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council on the amended amendment?
[Zac Bears]: Section 50-67? Yeah. All right. And please send the amendments in a clean copy. Yes. I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp, name and address for the record. Steve, you have three minutes. I'm going to unmute you and I'll restart the timer.
[Zac Bears]: I do not. I mean, I don't know if any city commissions are not staffed. currently. I don't, I certainly can say there's no city commission staffed by a city councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none and seeing no discussion members of the public. We do have a motion from Councilor Tseng as amended to approve as amended by Councilor Tseng. Is there a second on the motion on the second by Councilor Lazzaro? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25.075 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, Medford Square District and West Medford Square District for reform of the Community Development Board. This was referred from the planning and permitting committee to our regular meeting. The initial proposal, the process from here is that the council is obligated to refer zoning amendments, rightfully presented zoning amendments such as this one to the community development board. The community development board will then hold a public hearing on the matter. They may choose to make recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing on the matter and consider any proposed recommendations from the community development board. And then after the public hearing of the council is concluded, the council would vote to adopt or reject. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to the Community Development Board by Vice President Kahn, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. If I'm in the affirmative, one of the negative, one absent. The proposal is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the Mayor, 25077, submitted by Mayor Briana Lungo-Koehn. Medford Square parking lot development RFP evaluation committee update. I know that Director Hunt was stuck in a Traffic Commission meeting. We do have Economic Development Director Sal DeStefano with us. I see several PDS folks in here. Do we know where Alicia Hunt is? Still in Traffic Commission. Is there a motion to table until later in the meeting? 25-077 by Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I already called the roll, though. Hold it. Okay, great. We do have to vote. I'm serious.
[Zac Bears]: One in the affirmative, five in the negative, one absent. Motion fails. Is she coming down here? Okay. Well, I can just get us a little bit of preview damping while we get there. So the update that we're receiving from the RFP evaluation committee tonight is regarding the awarding of the proposal submitted by transom. So we do have here from the mayor, dear president bears and members of the Medford city council evaluation for the request for proposals RFP for lease and development of real property has completed its review and evaluation work. I respectfully request and recommend that Council permit a presentation to be made to Your Honourable Body on the proposals received, the evaluation process, and the Committee's vote for the preferred developer. Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability Alicia Hutt will be present at your meeting to present on behalf of the Committee. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lugo, current Mayor. We, the city, has had several plans on Medford Square over the past 20 years. All of them have talked about activating these surface lots behind and adjacent to City Hall. And last fall, an RFP was drafted regarding those lots, requesting that proponents the City of Toronto. Submit proposals for the redevelopment of those lots based on a number of conditions. The city did receive two proposals. There's an evaluation committee of which I was a non voting member. The mayor was a non voting member. Um and city staff and our Chamber of Commerce president were voting The two proponents and then eventually after review, and there was also a scoring sheet based on a bunch of objective criteria. The committee made a recommendation to award. the proposal submitted by transom. Um, and director Hunt is here to share a little bit more about that. The next steps from here are that now the city will be able to enter into negotiations with the proponent. Um, the proposal is a starting point, not a final product. So, um, city staff working with the proponent, um, will be able to Um. Tune that proposal. Hopefully make some changes that I know that the city has wanted to make. Um and then once a final agreement has been drafted, the city council will need to vote. To approve the lease agreement for the city on land that these new developments would sit on. Could we allow Director Hunt to share her screen? I'll recognize the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, it didn't change anything for us. Oh There's a little thing in the bottom right just a little paper. Oh
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Does that do anything? No. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any tips?
[Zac Bears]: We do have our Medford Community Media Director, Kevin Harrington, to help out.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can promise that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Do we have questions or comments from members of the Council?
[Zac Bears]: Just if I could really quickly to Councilor Scarpelli's point, something that, you know, having talked in the council in general and looked at the plans and worked with the team, in the RFP before we got proposals, so the request for proposals, we did include some additional language around the city owned parking lots behind the strip along Riverside Avenue and also the City Hall property itself to see if maybe we could encourage some potential expansion and renovation of this building. And we spoke with atrius health to see if we could leverage the parking garage, and we spoke with Hamilton well not me but you spoke with Hamilton companies about all of the property that they own on Riverside so those were. included in the process, and I think, at least for me, as I continue to participate in the process, going back at bites at those at those apples and really trying to see if we can get them on board is going to be a priority for me. And Davis had also done some preliminary designs on potentially some upgrades to this building, which I think would be really great that maybe we could to incorporate as well. So I just wanted to put all of that out there that those were some things that I raised as part of the process that are still going to be a priority for me. But thank you for giving me time and Director Hunt, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from members of the Council? just wanted to note along those points too that I think the flip side of some of this is how much bigger do certain elements of the project get to allow for more community benefits, right? And also like, what is the financing capacity of the entity that we're working with? And so those are like two of the other things that we're kind of working through.
[Zac Bears]: A restaurant. A restaurant. A fully functioning restaurant.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's the five over two, and even Davis, they proposed three five over twos, but didn't go above that, even though Hyatt Place is obviously taller, and the Medford Housing Authority buildings are obviously taller, and even the zoning we are gonna pass is gonna allow more in those spaces, or zoning that's been proposed is allowing that. So, yeah, it's a tough, tough one. Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Never a bad tenant until they need a bailout.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you all. Yeah, and I think, you know, we're going to try to go as big as we can and make sure that whatever we do either enables some of the longer term things that we talked about or at least doesn't block them and sets us up for those future discussions. So I'm really looking forward to continuing to work on that with you guys. And I know we'll have another update for the council, hopefully, you know, next few months.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And there's a motion from councils are to receive in place on file, seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Do we have any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public, either in person or raise your hand on Zoom? If one person on Zoom. Marie, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The units are all rentals and the proposal was 20% of the units affordable at 80% AMI, but that's not the final answer. And there's either potential for more units, if it's a bigger project, maybe more units at that level, or maybe a change in the distribution of the affordability requirements. I don't know if you have anything more on that, Director Hunt. Great, no, we're good. Any more questions, Marie, on that?
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. So sorry to use that term. 80% of the area median income, and that changes depending on the household size, and it looks like Director Hunt And it also changes every year. But Director Hunt has the income. And then just before you read the income, I believe the way it works is it can be a maximum of 30% of your income. But I'll just let you.
[Zac Bears]: I think, Marie, to your larger question, like the question of what is something that a person can afford to rent is part of the discussion of like, Well, 80% of AMI is very high. Should we look at 50% of AMI or 30% of AMI, and that would pretty significantly reduce the deed-restricted rent amounts. The problem is that it also reduces the revenue, and that reduces the ability to finance the project. and because of how you know we're doing this we're getting public benefits because we're leasing the land and that is a portion of the cost but a huge portion of the cost of housing is the construction cost and the state does not Certainly the federal government and state government do not provide money for us to do that. They also don't allow cities to, for example, take out bonds to fund the construction of housing. That maybe could be a choice that the city could say, if that was an option afforded to us, we could maybe try to be a part of financing this project. But the state doesn't allow us to do that. So we're kind of reliant, again, around financing
[Zac Bears]: It's definitely going to be part of the conversation. The lease payment, I think, proposed by Transom is about a million dollars a year.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think we'll have to look at the I mean, there's a financial proposal that's part of the request for proposal. We're not doing this to give the developer a windfall. That's not the intent of this. But the purchase cost of the land versus the lease cost of the land versus as a proportion of the cost of the project is smaller than you would think. The land is not half the cost of the project. The construction costs are the vast majority of the costs, at least from
[Zac Bears]: It is 25%, you know, it's 20% affordable. It's 25% more affordable units that are required by the inclusionary zoning. We've been going back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just I do want to let some other people go, Marie, and I'm always happy to. I'm always happy to talk about it more. And I think just the thing I would say is the affordable housing piece was a big component of the proposal. It's going to be a big proponent, like component of the negotiation. And, you know, we're going to do our best as part of the I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Paul Garrity. Paul, name and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can go to a director, but there is a financing plan that's part of the proposal. It outlines in pretty significant detail what the proponent expects to receive in rents, both from the affordable units of the not affordable units, the market rate units, how those are coming in over time. There is a and it goes out at least 30 years, I think longer than that. I don't know if you want to talk a little bit more about the specific financial proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I mean, I think the easiest answer to the question on the financing plan is if the developer can, I mean, subject to having the equity and the banks, you know, the financing to do it, if the developer can build more market rate units and they can provide more public benefits, whether that's more affordable units or other public benefits or affordable units at a deeper level of affordability, but that's kind of the, we're still in the, um, really tough catch-22 situation here where this is privately financed and it's privately financed by private finance institutions that are seeking a profit. It is not a publicly financed project. By leasing the land we're getting some more public benefit because of how we're doing it because we're we are a stakeholder but it's different than say if we were having a non-profit developer trying to help us finance this and having the money for it or especially if there was you know government financing available public financing or funding available that would be a completely different conversation so it's essentially a version of what we do with our inclusionary zoning on private land but just somewhat improved in a sense because it's also a lease of this public land. I don't know if you want to add to that at all. Um, okay. Uh, Paul, um, I'm just going to go to council.
[Zac Bears]: And that's that's the developers financing plan. So if they can have more affordable housing, you know, if they can get the equity to do that, then more more or deeper, more affordable units or units at a deeper affordability or both would be on the table.
[Zac Bears]: They are significantly below market rate for new construction.
[Zac Bears]: I think a lot of people say affordable, they say small a affordable. And this is big a affordable it's legally, the definition of subsidized housing inventory affordable.
[Zac Bears]: And we did solicit a lot of different bids. If a nonprofit housing developer had bid on this, we'd be in a different conversation, probably, because it's probably who we would have gone with.
[Zac Bears]: And I mean, I think you're completely right, and Marie's completely right, and others are completely right. the market has failed, and the government is not intervening in the failure of the market. And then the question is, do you do nothing and hope that a different government will set different rules? Like, how much do you want to try to wait out like the public housing renaissance and the social housing renaissance in this country? Or do you try to preserve as much existing naturally affordable housing as you can by at least trying to meet market demand. And I think we're in a, in a difficult situation with that so like I completely agree. And it's, as for me, many, you know, five years up here. really hard that these kinds of decisions are put on us at this level of government because the state and federal government are completely ignoring and absent and in some cases making the situation a lot worse. That's why I brought up like the if the state just allowed like us to use municipal bond rates that would open up some financing options here even if it wasn't like us actually paying back the bonds themselves just if the city could help finance it at those rates, right? Like that would be a game changer versus like these guys have to go out and find $200 million in financing at the current rates. So it's tough and it's hard. There's one more comment. Molly, could you start your video before I let you speak? All right, you seem to be a real person. You're upside down, but I trust you're not gonna Zoom bomb me. Molly, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that was just a verification.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Molly. And I know that's gonna be an issue that we try to balance as well as part of the project. And we're gonna, do you have anything more you wanna add on that, Dr. Hunt?
[Zac Bears]: We would love some big, beautiful steel buildings, I can tell you that. Yes. All right, we had a motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Nazaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I don't have it. If you can share it with me, if you share with the clerk, actually. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25078, amendments to the parking ordinance, section 78173. I don't know, Director Hunt, are you on any of this? Okay, it's fine. As a member of the Traffic Commission. Yeah, so we had a, there was a committee of the whole meeting, the chief of staff talked about it. This is a proposal to repeal an ordinance section on municipal employee and municipal business parking because the traffic commission is now putting in regulations around municipal parking to address the parking shortage at city hall and people parking at city hall for non-municipal business. And the request is to repeal this ordinance so that there's no conflict between the Traffic Commission regulations and the City Ordinance. Is there anything else you'd want to add on that, Alicia?
[Zac Bears]: And I know that the Chief of Staff and the Parking Director talked about this with folks in Committee of the Whole. I wasn't able to attend that meeting. It's my first miss this year, but I wasn't able to be there. Is there anything else that folks who were at that meeting want to add about the proposal or anything that I missed from the discussion at that meeting? Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's actually in here pretty specifically about The above changes allow the city to update the signage at City Hall and enforce parking restrictions. Currently, we have commuters who are parking in the lot and using the bus or walking over to Harvard Vanguard. So they're not using the Harvard Vanguard lot and they're not using the commuter lot, they're using City Hall and it's making it hard for employees and people who want to do business at City Hall to do business. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Paris. Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. 25079 appropriation of free cash for car park. Let's take both of you. Let's talk about it all at once, even though there's two papers for car park. I'm guessing it's for the same reason. So we have an appropriation of free cash and a CPC appropriation for car park. And then Teresa will just do the community garden piece when. Yeah. All right. So we have from the mayor, a request for 65,000 contingency funding for phase two of the car park renovation. And this is a funding match with the CPA is also a funding match. So I'll go to a planner central.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? I just have one. What was the contingency percentage? If we didn't, like if we didn't approve this, what was the contingency?
[Zac Bears]: So a lot less than that 2.3 to 4, 2.6 to 4%.
[Zac Bears]: And if the contingency funds aren't used, then they go back to the source?
[Zac Bears]: And in this case, would they go evenly back to the source? Or have you talked about that?
[Zac Bears]: So don't dig up any more problems. All right, any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing no hands in person or on Zoom, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. It was a dead tie and I was looking at Councilor Lazzaro, which felt unfair. So motion to approve the free cash appropriation by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. 16-101 absent, the motion passes. And if you want to stick around for the next, you know, we'll happily entertain you.
[Zac Bears]: Not when we're calling the roll, I'll tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: Also, the site of the former carnival.
[Zac Bears]: Too long. Councilor Callaghan, and then we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve. Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: And just to note, these were both unanimous votes of the CPC to recommend and the conditions you mentioned about the community garden were mentioned here.
[Zac Bears]: I just have one question actually for Amanda, which is kind of why I asked you to say I'm so sorry. And it's, you don't need to answer for too long. Do you think that the fact that those courts were buried is the reason that, like the courts above ended up becoming like cracked and broken and stuff?
[Zac Bears]: And that's something you're accounting for in this project. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, appreciate that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the CPC appropriation request, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent.
[Zac Bears]: Six of the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Saw which way that one was going. Thanks you guys. Great. It's like a first term trigger of some kind, I think you were the last in the alphabet at the time. Peter Cushing with us. He's been with us all night. Thank you, Peter, for sticking with us. And this is on the agenda because we approved the funding for this a free cash appropriation. And it turns out there's a state law that requires us to also for specifically for lease to own agreements, we have to pass a separate thing. So I'll go to Peter to explain that a little more.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Peter and just to note the specific language, dear President Bears and city Councilors I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to authorize at least purchase financing agreement after chat under chapter 44 of section 21 see of the general laws for the acquisition of security equipment upgrades remember public school buildings for which an appropriation was approved approved by a vote of the city council on April 29 2025 council paper number 25 066. The term of such agreement not to exceed five years and further that the school committee shall be authorized to enter into such agreement and any related documents on behalf of the city. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters, respectfully submitted, Brianna Legault-Kern, Mayor. So that is the item before us. Do we have any comments or questions? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any public discussion? On this. Okay. I assume you had a study depending on 4421 C. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahernabase at medford-ma.gov. We did have a paper from Anne Driscoll. Do we have Anne on the meeting? Anne, I don't think you're here in person. Anne, are you on Zoom? Is there a motion to Yeah, what do you think can we, we can just carry it over we're just going to carry it over. So we can just go to open public participation, name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes you can come to the podium or raise your hand on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: We're a little bit over. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate the comment. I can just say As one Councilor, I have been communicating a similar message to the mayor and the chief of police, especially last week when we had federal masks, unidentified federal agents in the city, intimidating the public. And when we have this abuse of power and intimidation and essentially a form of extortion as well to extort our compliance with illegality, I don't think our response can be We can't do anything about it. I personally received communications from people asking me, are, are these, who are these people, is there a criminal gang in my neighborhood. you know, and it's people are very, people are very scared. So I think and what we saw in Worcester last week, and how Worcester police handled that abhorrently, and is now pushing what I consider to be a pretty reactionary administration in the city of Worcester to consider a city policy about what the city will do in response to this. I think for folks who have said that they are on board with this, I think we need to be doing the same and have a very clear policy about this, how the city responds to federal intimidation and abuse of power, as well as informing the public about it. And I know that public health and community safety brought up some of these concerns last week. I don't know if you guys want to add anything. I see Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, I'm gonna watch the recording, see what was said, but what really frustrated me about what happened in Worcester, what I don't wanna see happen here is local police functionally being used to facilitate and protect people executing legally dubious or illegal orders. I think that's a serious, I think that's maybe a gap in the non-cooperation agreement that we have right now. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we do have one item under unfinished business eligible for third reading. Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25-053 from the table and approve for third reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. This is the gender affirming care and reproductive care ordinance. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, takes the affirmative, what absent the motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Any further discussion or is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: I just say 1 thing before we do that. Hi, everyone. Zachary's here. Just want to say 1 thing. And to remind everyone, I think something we have these lines when we talk zoning of the maps and what are the maximum heights and incentive zoning. I think it's really important to remember that just what the zone is and what the maximum height is does not define what can happen on a lot. you have to take what the zoning is the zone is and what the zone allows also the dimensional requirements the performance standards parking requirements you know you can't build a seven-story plus two-story incentive structure on a 3,000 square foot lot because there's not enough room for the dimensional and the parking and the daylight and that's really important to remember it's a combined assessment of all of the zoning rules that we're doing not just the top level So, if anyone has seen the presentation and says, oh, this is I don't like it. They're going to put a 7 story building on this very tiny lot next to me. It's not going to happen because the dimensional requirements don't allow it and the other requirements don't allow it. And I say that in both directions, right? If people are worried that buildings that they want to see built will be too small. or too big, right? It comes down to more than just what the zone is and the maximum. It's also about the other dimensional and performance requirements that are part of the zoning ordinance. So it's just important to recognize that and I think that's important for us to state and include as part of our presentation because I think a lot of conversation focuses on just this top line number and figure for a zone.
[Zac Bears]: Right. They're saying to me that they can't hear the questions, but the Zoom
[Zac Bears]: questions like these are you should contact the building department and they may be able to provide you more guidance um and you might have to wait until the the new zoning is in effect um at least in some cases and when is that is that in august the new zoning well this is getting going to get referred to the cd board it's going to go through a public hearing process it's going to take a month or two months
[Zac Bears]: You can also email OCD at Medford-MA.gov, and we can work on specific questions.
[Zac Bears]: We've expanded significantly communication to the many channels we have available to us.
[Zac Bears]: I manage a lot of meetings. I think if we could have one voice, and if we could go back to going back to early, back and forth comments, and if we could try to keep questions to one to two minutes so that we can get a question heard, that'd be ideal. So if we could go back to Zoom and ask the next question. I hear that, but we have a civil process. We're going to try to take an orderly process and we'll sit here as Rick. We're going to sit here as long as we can hear everybody, but I want to hear everybody in orderly process.
[Zac Bears]: I can say two things about this. Number one, this is, tonight we're talking about the Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the ADU proposal. I just want to bring that up. I will quickly answer your question. Hatch Road is in the residential district proposal. Part of the discussions with the Community Development Board and the planning staff around the residential district proposal was to address and put different districts in, specifically based on the issue is have a lot of issues, some of them are topographically difficult. Essentially, they're not built up to the standard that's required by law for a public way. My understanding of the residential district proposal proposed last night is that areas with private ways are generally. One district of lower for that reason, in general on private ways, I would refer you to a couple of things on the city website. There's, I believe, something from our traffic and folks talking about private ways as well as maybe a police police meeting about private winners. My understanding of the mayor's policy is that we do not have the funding to currently even maintain and improve our public ways and that the city is not using funds on private ways unless it is essentially an emergency condition where a police or fire vehicle would not be able to go down that street if it wasn't repaired.
[Zac Bears]: option that is available to property owners on private ways is to work you know technically everyone who lives on a private way owns the private way collectively and the people who own private ways can put additional restrictions on access to their um parking and access to their private way uh so that's one difference between the private and the public way as well all right thank you um i will i mean
[Zac Bears]: I think very simply, the state is reducing local control under 48. Right.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add one thing, Sheila. Thanks for the question about sewing. this relates to zoning by allowing especially i think in these vacant storefronts we have a lot of buildings that i don't think anyone would say are particularly attractive or that we want to keep in the long run certainly there are some but by changing the zoning use the calculus for some of these property owners um to potentially sell the property to someone who would maintain them better um and it's not um you know again we have limited tools at our disposal because private property owners do fundamentally have the right to do what they want with their properties including if they're very wealthy to keep them unrented um but we are looking at a vacant building ordinance and other ordinances to try to address problems and the problems that you raised are two of them but specifically for zoning um right now people don't want to sell maybe if we change the zoning someone comes in and can convince them to sell that it doesn't currently
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to say too much on the residential district proposal, but as it relates to Medford Square, we had a lot of discussions. Medford Square is circled, essentially, by the river and the highway, which create barriers. The other issue is that on the north side of the square, you have really difficult both topographical situation with the summit road, et cetera. I think the residential district proposal proposed some changes in those residential zoning along high street, but we didn't think about it and those were the major issues.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, now, all right, we just disconnected for about a minute. Sorry. Again, the hybrid Internet situation. It's not really incredibly feasible to be doing these meetings. We had a question in the room and the question in the room was, can we talk about the process going forward? and upcoming moments for people to further engage. And we also confirmed that the Medford Square, West Medford Square and ADU proposals have not been approved yet. Right now they are going to be at the city council to then be referred to the community development board. So there's many public meetings ahead, but go back to Kit for that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Can I just add to that? So really there's two parts of this. There's creating a proposal and then the state law required public hearings. and then it being approved. Right now, we have two sets of things. We have the residential districts. We created a proposal that went to the Community Development Board. They opened a public hearing. That has now been happening over the course of three Community Development Board meetings. And there will be a fourth Community Development Board meeting on May 21st. where they may choose to make recommendations and then send that to the council and then the council would have a public hearing and then the council would vote to adopt the residential districts and consider the recommendations or make further amendments based so that's the residential districts
[Zac Bears]: Those are the community board meetings are on zoom. The city council is in city council. So that will be a public hearing and city council hybrid in person in the chambers and also on zoom. And that's the final meeting where a decision is made to approve or reject the amendment. So that's the residential districts which we weren't talking about here tonight. Although we ended up talking about it. Then there's a second grouping right now for some proposals. Medford Square, West Medford Square and the accessory dwelling unit changes. Those are we've essentially we've come to the point where we have a proposal. That's what we're talking about tonight in this Q&A. This is just a Q&A. It's not part of the formal process. The City Council is going to, it will be on the agenda next Tuesday for the City Council to send this to the Community Development Board for Medford Square, West Medford Square and the ADUs. Then they will start their public hearings on that. Then they will make their recommendations and that will come back to the Council. And then there are three or four additional topics The Medford Tufts institutional zoning, the other other corridors, which essentially is just Boston Avenue and Main Street corridor, the Wellington district. And then kind of a grouping of city wide regulations around parking and some other regulatory items. Those have yet to be. We're still at that starting in the city council planning and permitting committee, and then it would go to the community development board and then it will go to the. Come back to the city council for approval. Basically, what I'm saying is. look out on the city website for the community development board agendas look out on the city website for the city council agendas and then there's also a page medfordma.org zoning where we are doing our best to as quickly as possible add all of the links to upcoming meetings recordings of meetings meeting materials and everything else related to zoning immediately upcoming The May 21st community development board hearing on the residential districts. That is a. you know, another moment to be heard. And then they will make a recommendation after that, that will come back to the city council as early as May 27. And then these proposals need to be advertised throughout the whole zoning process. So we will probably refer them out to the community development board next week, but the community development board meetings on those are likely to be in June and then come back to the council after that.
[Zac Bears]: So we're hearing from Daniel Evans that Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the ADUs would likely first be considered by the Community Development Board on June 7th. That's their first opening of their public hearing. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: changes to the zoning ordinance, why did they not occur by referendum? Essentially the state, so all of our other ordinances are outlined by the charter, et cetera. Zoning, the state gives cities and towns the power to set their own land use and zoning under Chapter 40A, Mass General Law Chapter 48. Mass General Law Chapter 48 outlines the process for how zoning is adopted. And it is through, essentially, it is actually the city council That is the mayor doesn't even have to sign the zoning ordinance. City councils, legislative bodies of cities and towns, so town meetings and city councils set zoning by state law.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, that'll be in the other corridors as well.
[Zac Bears]: The joint, the joint proposed.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll just add for people who don't have the context, the reason that they're brought the city line between Medford and Somerville is about 10 or 20 feet behind Broadway. So most of the lots are in both cities. So this both of the cities zoning needs to be the same or similar so that they can build on those lots.
[Zac Bears]: On private ways, the answer is we've looked at it, and it's the cost is exorbitant. So, 100 to 500Million dollars, potentially more than that to bring all the public and that's like ballparky. We don't that's not what tariffs. But, uh. Yeah, so either the city could, if the city somehow came into a couple billion dollars, we'd all be very happy. And maybe that would be a project we could consider. But the other thing is that the owners of a private way currently can pay to bring it up to a standard to be adopted as a public way. So that's how that would work. But we have looked at it and the issue is the infrastructure cost. The city can't adopt a private way as a public way unless it is outfitted to the standard of a public way. which includes stormwater, sidewalks, ADA compliant, I mean the whole thing. It's also one of the reasons that full street reconstruction costs so much right now these days. On the traffic question, the main answer is the traffic impact of specific projects would be determined based on a project proposal and the site plan review process. But we have a we have development linkage fees for that go towards this infrastructure so that pay into a linkage fee structure which we're trying to update hasn't been updated in 35 years. So we're trying to update it to reflect current day prices and not 1990 prices, but that money can be used by the city for infrastructure improvements. And the other piece of this is that we've also included it through the incentive zoning that one of the potential And we have seen this as part of several developments in the area that a big piece of what they do is they do kind of bring the street into a modern street design so either just the pure infrastructure improvements and potentially like implementation of designs at the need to actually do the construction could be part of new structures in the neighborhood. So if, for example, the Walgreens area was redeveloped into something more significant, one of the benefits could be we need to redo this corridor to make it much cleaner and safer for traffic. But one of the flip side issues that Emily or Paolo could explain much better than I Is we can make an assumption that everything that could possibly get built will get built, but we know that that's not going to happen. So that's where the trying to figure out what the traffic impact is without project proposals is kind of a hypothetical. Right.
[Zac Bears]: The condos at the old funeral home.
[Zac Bears]: The other thing I'll point to is, and it's more for the squares. I think I haven't I don't know if I saw them for residential districts, but you've put together some kind of cross sections. Like, what what would. it looked like between Mystic Valley Parkway and High Street under this new zoning. There was also, I think, a couple of references to some of these and then some of the daylight standards to illustrate more. The real problem is it's all layered on top of each other. It's like, what is the daylight standard? What's the dimensional? What's the allowed zone? What's the neighboring condition of the neighboring lots?
[Zac Bears]: Comments made to the City Council, written comments. Each individual Councilor reads them. They can choose to respond individually or not. If someone in their written comment requests that it be read out loud in a meeting and it's not 20 pages long, we generally do our best to read them out at the meeting. If you really are intent on a written comment being read during the meeting, I would recommend including the City Clerk on your comment and mentioning, please read this in the meeting. maybe even emailing the city clerk directly, he can help us just keep that organized as well. But it's a little bit different than how it works for the Community Development Board. Each councilor handles that in their own way.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would also just add that if people have a question like, what can I do? At least what can I do now? The building department is really responsive on questions like that. And they're the ones who can tell you. They enforce the zoning bill.
[Zac Bears]: And this is one of the really challenging things about parking mandates and minimums is like a lot of what people do, right? You might have a three car, like you can fit three car lengths in a driveway, but in order to, you know, actually you'd have to move a car to get another car out. I'm basically pretty sure that doesn't count as a parking space, right? Yeah, so I believe under the code, and I could be corrected if everyone else can correct me, that you have to be able to get the car in and out independently. So that's what constitutes a parking space. So when you mandate free parking spaces, it's not, oh, the people in the building will work it out, and someone will move out at 8 AM, and someone will move their car back in. You have to be able to independently access that space at any time. So free parking spaces is actually you know, maybe all this square footage in your backyard, and then maybe you're over the open space requirement, or you have to do a permeable service, but it's like, it doesn't account for all of the actual heuristic behaviors that we all do every day, or that we do because we're like, trying to cooperate with each other in society. It's literally just saying, like, you have to be able to get in and out independently, completely, and if you can't do that, mandate it balloons the amount of parking that you might actually think you might be saying that like a new parking space under like building a new parking space under the zoning it's very different than what we might consider as like a parking space that we use in an existing house every day because it doesn't factor in that use it's like you need this person who you know the parking space needs to be accessible at all times it has to be a minimum size and dimension it doesn't matter if you all have smart cars you all have escalades right it's like you have to
[Zac Bears]: uh the 15 the 15 story element where it said other permanent structures 15 story that's the current zoning okay in certain districts and we are not allowing that um there are some things in the approved mystic avenue corridor district between mystic avenue and the highway that i think approach that that are above 10 12 stories with incentives zoning so it's age by right and then
[Zac Bears]: Great. It's hard to remember their name. You've just got to know it.
[Zac Bears]: We've really been trying to iterate through this process and make it better. I personally feel like we're in a much better position than we were a year ago in terms of getting the word out. It is basically really been coordinating that effort. Something I think we can try to maybe do instead of the timeline this way is her top, like, have it be each topic and we go over to the beginning of each meeting. So we can say residential districts. Here's upcoming for residential districts. Square by square, ADU, here's upcoming, and then it's not all mixed together. And that might be easier to read. That might be a different way to format the schedule so that people can know what topic is coming up.
[Zac Bears]: Chronological order by topic might also then spread it, like not have it all. Layered on top of each other.
[Zac Bears]: We've asked the mayor's office and when we say the communication stuff, I want to be the mayor's communication staff because we don't always get to communicate what the council would like to communicate through them and we do not have communication staff. Yes, so we have been asking them to include this in more of the communications. They have included them in more of the communications. We've been working collaboratively with them. They won't have more just that part of the problem. So, like, the mayor's newsletter goes out every 2 weeks. So it's included in the thing that goes out every 2 weeks. But I think we've asked for, can you send out communication specifically about this project? And it's. It's just that we're going to include it in the things we already send out. And that may be a communication strategy. Maybe it goes down in readership the more things they send or something. I don't know what they're trying to balance there. So I don't mean to say that they're just not listening to us, but that's been kind of the response.
[Zac Bears]: I just, I just want to add.
[Zac Bears]: We are working, the Board of Health, the Health Director, you had Yankee passed out. Yes. We're working on that. We passed a new rodent control ordinance three years ago that's now started to build up through fees. Some more funds to to help in addition to what the city budgets were. We had the health budget on Tuesday, health budget on Tuesday. We were talking to the health director about this and we want to further amend the ordinance. There's an issue with the fine structure for the ordinance. We need to make an amendment to it to start finding problem properties as well, which we think will help more. And another piece of that ordinance that went into effect that the health director has been working along is requiring integrated pest management plans for developments over a certain size. The new Davis on building companies project on Fellsway, for example, there's a ton of information that went out they just started. And there's a ton of information about their integrated pest management plan and how that project specifically is going to mitigate rodents. That's not to say that Alicia's not you know there is a climate and regional issue with rats and you know but trying to address the problem properties trying to get people to not overfill the trash cans having the integrated pest management plans for these projects um and hopefully through fees and fine timing more resources for yankee pests to help out on more properties is generally the city's approach um but hopefully with the development some of these things are
[Zac Bears]: Right, we try to also talk more about this than I could part of the news trash contract and part of the new solid waste ordinance we passed is trying to a and the practice where we have open trash in the squares, which has been a huge issue for a long time, but also much more strict requirements on dumpsters and ballers. for private businesses. So that's another way that we're trying to go after this problem. So the DPW Health Planning Council Mayor, we are super aware of the rat problem and we're trying to hit it from every angle.
[Zac Bears]: I will say if we don't have another question, this might be a good... uh wrapping up it's 9 20.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council committee of the whole may 6 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Council Kelly and is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Also saying, President Bears present by President to us in this meeting is called the order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford city council committee of the whole at 6pm and the city council chamber second floor Medford city hall. Sorry, turn this down a little bit. 85 George B has to drive Medford Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting number three. This will be the third preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 26 budget process the mayor has communicated that the following departments we present Board of Health. facilities, IT, elections, executive and law, and we'll take it in that order. And just a reminder that we have also two budget meetings ahead of us on May 20th and May 21st. And then we also have already had two budget meetings on April 29th and April 30th. So with that, we will start with the Board of Health and Civil Defense. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: It's on.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. I'm happy to just read it out really quickly and then you can add all the lovely details and I'll give you a little prompt when I'm done and then we can go to questions from members of the council. So we have the Board of Health and Animal Control. We had the fiscal 25 budget at 810,978. fiscal 26 proposed $955,579 for an increase of $144,601. And these are fixed costs. There's a significant increase in the employees, and that is because two positions that were 50% ARPA are being added to the general fund. And we also had COLA increases and step increases for our non-union and union employees. The mosquito control and kennel services are up 16,000. That's an increase by 4% for the mosquito control and kennel services have increased with more dogs being held each year. So basically just the three questions are if you wanna explain more about the change in the budget and talk more about what I just kind of did a quick overview of. We'd love to hear your highlights of the past year any plans for the upcoming year. And then finally, you know, what is a priority or a project that isn't funded this year that you'd like to see funded in the future. Okay, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. What were the two positions that came onto the general fund from ARPA?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My only other question was, is there anything that you'd like to do that wasn't able to be funded this year?
[Zac Bears]: Great, well, thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. thing is chicken neutral.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah. Is that funding her position as well?
[Zac Bears]: can send us the language. I don't think anyone's working. I'm not aware of anyone working on it yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I know that there's problem properties that really, you know, need to be
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I know you'll be judicious and I know that the fine is certainly the last resort. But you know, if there's someone who can fix it and just chooses not to, that's not being a good neighbor. Yeah. Anything else, Councilor Osanic? I'm good, thanks. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so feel free, you know, whoever needs to be a part of it to communicate with me or with other councillors about getting that done. Perfect, thank you. So I just have a couple questions of my own on the, so we talked about federal funds. I know that nonprofit and philanthropy in general is also in kind of a not great place to be inartful with my words. Are you concerned about any of the private grants that we get not being continued?
[Zac Bears]: I'm guessing that might be language related to the equal rights of all human beings or something like that. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. Science and humanity. Okay. Is there, have you heard of anything regionally or kind of in the public health world space around trying to join together and try to replace federal funds or work with other cities to apply for grants from larger foundations. Is that work that you're connected with?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah. Did they, I'm trying to remember everything I follow, Is there a new law around public health in the state around funding or is that the legislature passed something around boards of health? What, sorry?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and that's additional funds. Okay, great. Last few things relatively small just things that you mentioned. The ESOL classes, is that something that you are in partnership with the library on? Yes. Great. And animal control, off-hours calls, do you have any data? And I can ask the chief when we see him, do you have any data on how often are officers responding?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I guess like some of it, I'm just wondering how much time do we have officers out doing that? How much is that costing us in the long run versus what it would look like to provide additional support in the health department for animal control because that might be one of those things where we're not funding it in one place and we're actually you know, in some ways spending more, I know it's not that simple. You can't just transfer the money like that, but that might be an interesting thing for us to take a look at. So more of a conversation starter than anything else. Okay. Councilor Lemo.
[Zac Bears]: And then we might have it for when we have the meeting with them. Yeah. Great. So it's a motion to request from Chief Buckley and Medford Police data on how much time officers are spending responding to animal control issues outside of city hall hours. Awesome. Any other questions on the health department budget and we'll jump to civil defense and then we can take any questions from members of the public. Seeing none, we'll go to civil defense. We have maybe the first increase I've ever seen. We're going from $9,390 to $9,840 and it looks like We're adding a little bit for supplies, dues, conferences, and travel, and some equipment maintenance. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Where do we store those?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anything else you want to share on the civil defense front?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions on civil defense from members of the council? Seeing none. Do we have any questions from members of the public or comments from members of the public for the Board of Health or Civil Defense? Seeing none in person and no hands on Zoom. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll go to facilities. Welcome, thanks for being here. Just gonna quickly read off the budget change, and then you can, I'll read the kind of conversation prompts, and then we can go from there. We have facilities, fiscal 25 budget, 1,838,745. Fiscal 26 proposed, 1,933,393. That's a change of 94,648. There's a cola increase for the permanent employee, and we have some changes and increases in supplier costs for fuel, utilities, janitorial supplies, and increases in our contracts for HVAC and cleaning. So with that, I'll turn it over to you to talk about what the changes in the budget, some of your highlights from the previous year, plans for the year ahead, and what is a project or a priority that's not funded this year that you think needs to be funded in the future?
[Zac Bears]: Just really quickly, is the intent maybe in the future to move them over?
[Zac Bears]: Now we can see everything.
[Zac Bears]: I saw the sign for Kid Ninja the other day. That was the first one I'd seen.
[Zac Bears]: I know that very well.
[Zac Bears]: You're taking a question out of my mouth.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions from members of the council for Director Riggi and the Facilities Department? All right, I just have a couple really quick ones. We should think, I mean, I definitely agree the carpets in here are in need of replacement. I don't know what's under them. Do you know what's under them?
[Zac Bears]: I'm hoping it's something good, not something bad.
[Zac Bears]: He thinks it might be hardwood under there. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I just think, obviously, this is tentative on the decision of the voters, if there's a charter change. we're going to have to change this.
[Zac Bears]: OK, great. We'd love to coordinate on that. I'd love to coordinate that. I'm sure everyone has an opinion. So we'll see if it happens or not. But it's a significant change. I noticed that the utilities actuals are really high.
[Zac Bears]: Is that, in your estimation, is that coming back down?
[Zac Bears]: Are you expecting that we'll be in a deficit for this fiscal year?
[Zac Bears]: Just in the kind of, I know we've been working really hard and the existence of your department is like a shared services consolidated services model, and I know IT has been working on that as well. You mentioned the maintenance staff, that sounds like a good a good change. Is there anything else that's still kind of hanging out there from a maintenance perspective?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And last thing, outside of the HVAC and cleaning, what is funded in the building repair line?
[Zac Bears]: How many of our buildings have elevators?
[Zac Bears]: Police has one. Do the fire stations?
[Zac Bears]: And is that just South Menford or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Well, that's all I had seen Matt main counseling.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think too, there's some functionality elements and obviously design elements of screens. And this layout is actually really difficult for interactive or panel. And it obviously divides the room in a way that you can't use this space as actually.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. If you wouldn't mind including me in some way so I can convey.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions on facilities? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to make a comment on the facilities budget? Seeing none in the chambers and no hands on Zoom, thank you very much. IT, Information Technology. We have Director Rich Lane with us. Do you have a presentation? Is that why you joined our Zoom? Didn't I have one last year? You did. You know, I never know. We can make you a co host, Mr. Clark. Oh, you already did. Great. And I will just very quickly read off my thing before you start your screen share, but we are looking at a budget increase from 357,000 to 360,000 or so $2,891. and that is there's a COLA increase and a travel reimbursement increase for some travel between the buildings. All right, go ahead. Thank you. Do you think your presentation will cover what's the change?
[Zac Bears]: All right, lovely.
[Zac Bears]: Be careful, they'll start having to do a presentation for everybody.
[Zac Bears]: Oof. Wow. It's rough, isn't it? Third. How long did we make you wait this year compared to last year?
[Zac Bears]: She's a good sport. She always takes the last one, so. And she offered that again. Yeah. I appreciate... We incremental improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You've been watching, you've been learning, you've been iterating, and I didn't have to ask my questions, so I appreciate it. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you. Awesome. Um, Two questions for you. Let's see that there's a shift from data processing to communication applications. I'm guessing that's just a better nomenclature. Yeah, great. I guess it's three questions. The goal completion timelines on the projects that you brought up. Are there many of them in the upcoming fiscal year or many of them out a few years, some span.
[Zac Bears]: I know that you know the clerk's office the planning office sounds like now Board of Health. are working with the building department on the CitizenServe system. I'm guessing you're involved in that?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, I think that's something you know, we we need to circle back around as well as a council, we had a request out for departments around their fee schedules.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Great. Well, that's all I had. Do we have anything else from the council? Seeing none, you're always allowed to email me and remind me that I offered you to go first. All right. We will go now to executive. Or actually elections is technically alphabetically first, so we'll do elections if that's all right with you, Nina.
[Zac Bears]: That's great. Then we can go to law next and then we can circle back to executive. You know my three questions and you basically answered them for elections, but for law, you know, I would say we do have a bit more or doesn't have questions on elections. Sorry, guys. No, not not in the budget. Okay, well, this is still You can still ask. Yes, you can.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we can move on to the law department. So we do have here some changes. Not a huge change, actually a reduction of $5,000. And yeah, if you do have any highlights, or you wanna talk about the great work that Janice Spencer has been doing, I know, you know, but I do think we're going to have some questions here. There's a solicitor who's been hired and that's the first permanent solicitor in several years. So it's pretty significant change for the office and I would guess for the operations of how the law department and legal integrates with the city. But other than that, I'll turn it over to you and then we can go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you for the answer. And I think, you know, it would be behoove us to in a couple weeks, two weeks, maybe sit down, I just want to talk through if we're going to change any protocols, if there's things that are going for requests that are going through me to you to KP right now that are going to go through him, and I understand he needs time to sit down. And then also agreed on the workload. And, you know, we have so much going on legislatively. And I know there's all the work that goes on beyond that. And we're in a strange legal world right now. So, but I think it would be, you know, good to talk about what it looks like to have counsel at meetings and visit, you know, just if there's going to be changes to protocol, ideally to, you know, I would hope you would think save you some time, save the mayor some time, now that we have in-house, an in-house director for the law department.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I think I do have one specific question. But just before we go there, I think we are sharing the same principle here. And you said it in slightly different words than I would say it. But we aren't able to fund everything we want or need to fund. we don't have the revenue to fulfill the expenses, just fixed cost growth expenses that we have now, nevermind the things that we aren't doing that we know we need to do. And, you know, the override has helped, especially, I think, on the school side with that. But even then, right, we, it's a $7 million override, and it certainly helped DPW, we have a little bit more, like that's one relatively significant new investment that we were able to make on the city side. 500,000 being significant in this context, but maybe not in the greater context of what we need. But even then, the $7 million for the schools, $1.75 million of that was just not cuts happening last year that we covered with ARPA funds, right? So it's $5.25 million, and it's done a lot. But the costs are just escalating so much faster than the revenues, and especially these major drivers with health insurance, the trash contract. And that was a reality. Anyway, it was a reality that was getting better before November or January depending on the date that you want to pick and now it's a reality that's getting worse. it's a really frustrating situation when I like to try to see the budget in an inflation adjusted terms, because I think that's really the best way to understand what are we doing now versus what are we doing before. And after the recession in 2008, the real value of the city budget went down. It was worth, we had a budget that was 10 to 12% less in inflation adjusted terms than it was in 2006 and 2014 or 2015. Slowly under Mary Burke, that started going up. And also, you know, there was this kind of COVID shock. But we actually started doing better a little bit. And then there was this huge supply shock from inflation. And by fiscal 23, we were back down, you know, we'd gotten up to like 5% above fiscal 2006 value by like fiscal 2021. back down to zero immediately in 23. And with the overrides, we only are back on trend. We're at 9%. We're like the budget can do 9% more now than it did in fiscal 2006, which averages out to like 0.45% per year. So it's really, and that's with new growth. I mean, that's, you know, so it's a hugely, We're in a really difficult fiscal environment, and we all have priorities. Assistant City Solicitor is a priority. Assistant City Solicitor just dedicated to the Council to help us work through the significant legislation that we have been working on for several years now would be of huge value. But we also heard from Rich Lane that he could have a department of six more people, and Paul Riggi that he could have a department for four more people. And that's just the people we heard from tonight. We heard that Mary Ann, you know, we heard it from Mary Ann as well, right? Like they have four or five people, maybe even more than that, who could be at risk from state and federal and private grant issues. So we have, you know, again, we're in this position where we have dozens and dozens of positions. And if we brought Barbara Cameron in here, she'd say, well, the Somerville Planning Department is 80 people and ours is I think 12 now maybe, or maybe even less than that. So we have, and those are just the needs on the operating budget. We haven't touched as much that we need to build a new high school and we need to keep our buildings in place. So it just is a really difficult fiscal situation and I'm never going to not say it when it arises and it is important for us to talk about. I do have one question, which is I did notice in our difficult fiscal situation that the solicitor salary dropped a little bit. And I was just wondering if that was just because it was kind of a, hypothetical salary versus real salary?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. And I think, you know, it's this difficult situation where we ask people, there is a lot of history, there is a lot of context, and we ask people to hold two truths simultaneously. And sometimes that can be hard. But Right, if ARPA never happened, then we'd basically be, we would have, we were lucky that the revenue came in higher than it did, because if ARPA never happened, then we wouldn't have accrued these balances. And these balances, while not insignificant, pay for one major capital project if we use it all on that, right? So it's not that, you know, we, It's not that this money is meaningless, it's actually great. Like if ARPA didn't happen, we would be in an even worse situation. Because it happened, I did a spreadsheet where it's basically a 95%. Like if you look at the free cash balance and then the ARPA revenue replacement, it's basically 95% of the free cash balance came out of the ARPA revenue replacement, right? And that's great. That means that we have these funds to do these investments. If it hadn't happened, we'd have basically no free cash and we'd have tight budgets. And your point is well taken. And you know, the more that I've spent time doing this, you know, understanding, we had no idea what was going to happen. So we underestimated revenue pretty significantly. And, you know, the public, the residents, the businesses, did better than we thought, right, like meals and rooms did better and excise tax did better and some of the things that put together local receipts did better than we expected and that's really good. Things were not as bad as we budgeted for. And between that and ARPA, we have a little bit of money to make some forward looking investments on some really urgent issues, but it's not that we have, you know, an ongoing persistent forever, you know, windfall, right? It's not that we're going to get that every year. So it's really interesting and especially right as we now see the tides turn the other direction with finances and with the way that the federal government is acting. We're kind of going to be on the other end of that where we're maybe going to get, you know, hopefully there's not a billion and a half dollar Medicaid cut that is then cutting public health or chapter 90 or whatever. or UGA or Chapter 70, you know, these things that are essential, local aid that comes from those environments. So we benefited from the fact that we were in an environment where the federal government said we need to invest in our communities. And without that, we would have been at a zero basis. And now we're in kind of an opposite position. And so those winds of federal policy are very strong. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: You have a response to a specific concern.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilman was referring to one-time fund requests.
[Zac Bears]: We split our fiscal 26 requests. It's mostly operating, but there were several requests for the use of one-time funds, and I think that's what Councilman was referring to. Okay. So it was one-time funds for a couple of specific one-time only projects.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just so we don't go down a road.
[Zac Bears]: I'll say this just as one councillor that in a year when operating expenses are not something that we can, we're not looking at significant changes and increases, maybe some of these smaller things that could go, I agree with Councilor Livingston, a long way might be a way to move some things forward. Just two cents. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is that still Councilor Leming? I'd like to avoid just, I mean, I'll recognize you, but Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. It's not the 28 million it's not nothing but again we have an HVAC project that's worth 30 million so when I said it was not insignificant I, I mean it is something but again it addresses like one capital project if we spend it all on that. And I just wanted to bring this up and again this is just from the ACFR and the budgets and it's not from Bob, but Fiscal, some of the big free cash changes, Fiscal 22 and Fiscal 23, there was a $9.8 million increase, then an $8.7 million increase. But in those years, we used $8.6 million in ARPA and $7.6 million in ARPA. So the actual free cash would have gone if ARPA didn't exist. would just have been 1.2 million in fiscal 22 and 1.1 million in fiscal 23. So when we talk about the city's, you know, underspending, you know, that revenues came in above expectations and spending were below expectations, that only, without ARPA, that only would have meant about a million dollar increase in free cash. So It is, I think we're having a debate about the source of free cash. I think we all agree that it should be used for the purpose of the city in a quick way. It sounds like we have differences on how it should be used or how it maybe should have been used last year. But without ARPA, we'd be looking at $1 million increases, which is, you know, 0.25% of the general fund budget. It's really, not a huge surplus. Go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: If anything else on the law department budget, which is where we started.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, we can go to the executive. I'll just quickly read it off. We have the executive, which is the office of the mayor, and we have fiscal 25 budget, 673,270. Fiscal 26 proposed, 693,388. That's an increase of $17,118. It looks like we do have a reduction in the personnel with the special projects coordinator position is gone away. It's seen nods there. The fixed cost growth driving that 17,000 was personnel lines, partially shifting the communication specialist position to the city as well as cost of living and step increases. We do have increase in the C click fix contract, increase in MMA membership dues, and a general inflation cost for costs pertaining to events. And with that, I will turn it over to the chief of staff. Feel free to talk about the change any of your highlights in the office or plans for the year. And I know it's a little tougher because the mayor's office so it's, you know, let's not talk about the whole city, let's keep it keep the scope narrow. And then if there's things that is specifically within the executive, there may be, you know, needs or desires that currently can't be funded. You know, we're happy to hear about that, although we do think this department has a unique level of control over those types of things.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any questions about the executive? Seeing none, I do. Just three quick questions. There's a reduction in the stipends. I was just wondering what happened there.
[Zac Bears]: Interesting. Yeah, if there's any more history on that, that would be good to know.
[Zac Bears]: On the Arts Council, I'm just seeing a zero actuals for fiscal 25. And I'm kind of just wondering about general activity of the Arts Council. Has there been difficulties in finding appointees or why the spending is down? Especially at this time, I think it's more important than ever with federal cuts to arts and humanities funding. You know, that's some essential funds.
[Zac Bears]: If we could put in if anyone would move to just request an update on the Arts Council totally hear you that it's an accounting question, but I've also gotten some questions from folks in the community. How can I be more engaged with the Arts Council? And I also know some former members of the Arts Council have had to step away due to just not having the time to be able to put into the volunteer role. So just wondering if any of that is Is that all connected? And if there's some way that maybe the Council could be supportive or get the message out, we need some folks for the Arts Council. And I could be completely wrong too, right? It's just kind of trying to put together some stuff I've been hearing. Is there someone who would make that motion? Councilor Tseng? Thanks. Yeah, just an update on the Arts Council, yeah. Last thing, and if we need to save this for HR, I totally understand, but do you have an update on the classification and compensation study?
[Zac Bears]: Bring it back up. We don't have to put in the report, but if you want to give him a heads up, I'm going to ask the question. All right. Do we have any other questions on the executive budget? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public? second. Um, but this is the second one on the second motion. I think Council on the second.
[Zac Bears]: Could you could you reread the motions?
[Zac Bears]: seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All right. There's no further questions, no comments from members of the public. Is there a motion to refer the questions to the administration, keep the papering committee and adjourn? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer the questions keep the paper in committee and adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Oh, one second. Oh, it's yep. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On the, is there a motion to join? Can we add motion to join to the last motion? All right. So we're voting on everything, reporting them to the administration we're keeping the papering committee and we're adjourning. Right, I'm just going to call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative to absent motion passes me he's adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just think it's worth thinking about a naming convention that doesn't use the same words to mean different things in different districts. I don't know exactly how we would do that. But, oh, sorry. I'm just saying I think it would be worth trying to consider a naming convention that doesn't use the same words to mean different things in different parts of the city, because I think that's something we're trying to get away from. I don't know what that naming convention would be, but I do think it raises a point that if you're looking at the map, I just think it's gonna make it hard for the map to be intuitive to the average person looking at it.
[Zac Bears]: Are there more comments.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thanks for the comment, and I think this is a really good question to illustrate what happens through zoning and what happens through other processes. So the zoning for the lots between City Hall and the highway and the lots south of City Hall we're going to, you know, there's going to be a zone there. It's going to indicate what the property owner could conceivably build based on the zoning code. But in this case, the property owner is the city of Medford. And we're currently going through a process. We had a request for proposals for redevelopment of the city owned lots surrounding City Hall. And there's information about that on the city website. And more information to come from that, but definitely one of the main considerations was what does the parking demand for the square look like? And how do these lots play into that? Certainly, you know, there are a number of parking related factors included in the RFP, and that would be included in any award to anyone who submitted a proposal to work with the city for redevelopment, such as the senior center parking, it was mandated that that be preserved. And looking at the parking needs related to Chevalier and also related to new construction. So, but that's actually going to happen in this case through the city working with a group to do that redevelopment. And then, for example, if there was a redevelopment by a private owner of private lots, parking would be discussed through the site plan review process through the Community Development Board. And I think it's just a great way to show that, you know, the zoning is one piece of the larger puzzle around what our city and community looks like. And there are other processes where the actual specifics of what's getting built, where, where is the parking, how many units, you know, there's so much more public process that happens after zoning is passed before anything gets built. All that to say, in this specific case, the city's already doing that work. And parking has been a major part of that discussion. and I'll throw in my two cents on it, which is I would love for us to try to figure out how to better utilize the large and mostly empty Atrius Health parking lot that already exists right across the street from City Hall. So I'm hopeful that we can do that as part of this process that the city's working through. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to apologize. We take as long as we need. We shouldn't rush anything. The purpose of scheduling the 7pm is that if we had finished by 7pm, we could start the next meeting at 7pm, because you can't backdate a notice. So if we had said eight o'clock, and we'd finished at 730, everyone would have been waiting around for 30 minutes. But the purpose of the back to back six to seven is that if the if this meeting needs to continue, it can go as long as it needs to go. And then we can start the next meeting. So I just want everyone to, you know, we're, we're gonna take this deliberately.
[Zac Bears]: I believe, yeah, we should. We should do everything that's on the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have sections, Paula and Emily for this, or could you just reiterate the development standards piece again and how that would integrate with the zoning. So like that. Yeah, and I guess my point being that like the by right. you're not just gonna be able to put 100% lot coverage, seven-story building by right on these lots. There's gonna be dimensional standards, development standards, parking requirements that are going to impact what is actually buildable on each of these lots. And given the odd lot shapes, lot sizes, probably significant lack of ability to combine existing lots, existing, you know, you have two, you know, two of the most significant areas are owned by nonprofit religious organizations and institutions, you're not actually going to see, you know, St. Ray's get replaced by a seven plus two. So I just think it's important, again, to reiterate how zoning fits into the larger context of construction and development processes. My point being, you know, if you're on If you're looking at the large lots on on circuit or Bauer, there's going to be some limitations based on the development standards and the width of the street and the sunlight and the light. That means you're not going to see, you know, it's probably going to be three, four or five story building, which I think is great. And if they could make it stylish and make it fit the daylight to have a piece of that be seven stories, I think that's great. But I just think it's important. I think people see this map and they say, okay, you know, you start to say this is what is this going to look like? What is this actually going to look like versus how it integrates with actually the full written text of the zoning and what's possible given the size of the lots and the development standards that are being incorporated. So that was more of a comment, but I think also a jumping off point at least.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I spoke to that, and I don't know if Director Hunt maybe talk to anybody else about it. And we did receive a couple emails from people who live there. I didn't know if you guys were going to go back and review it or not. But I personally, just given the conditions there, don't think it should be included. It is really difficult to access. And when there was the fire at the Canal Street, you know, it's still, you can still see the fire damage when you're coming over the Boston Ave bridge, and there's been a ton of dispute building Commissioner Fire around the reconstruction of that. So it's essentially a dead end street that already has a lot of housing on it. And I know that the fire department was concerned with even reconstructing the number of units in that existing structure. It's a pre-existing non-conforming structure that maybe had illegal unpermitted work done to it to add illegal units. So it's kind of a complicated situation, but there was a lot of concern about fire safety. And just given for me, given that it's on the other side of the railroad tracks, I think there's a cohesion element as well.
[Zac Bears]: On the Walgreens side of the street, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And don't worry about the time where, since we're going back and forth here, um, it's, uh, It is actually, I think, is it MBTA owned privately operated or just privately owned?
[Zac Bears]: That's better. That's better.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to quickly add to that. We've talked about all the different things that constrain, you know, who owns what and the lot size and all of that. But, and you guys correct me on the specific numbers if I get them wrong, but I think the zoning that's been in place for at least 25 or 30 years, technically allows a 14 story hotel to be built in West Benford Square right now. And it's never happened. So it's that kind of, you know, thinking around it too. We're actually in some ways would be reducing what's allowed in, you know, The new zoning would not allow a 14-story hotel to be built in West Medford Square, right? But even though it has been allowed for a really long time, no one ever wanted to do that or tried to do that. So we've had a lot of moments in this meeting talking about how zoning is just one piece of a big puzzle. I hope we get some of it before you're gone, though.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to add that the bus network redesign, they justified their service changes based on demand. So just to back up Paola's point further.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Just so I understand it, it's mostly around the historical conversions. So we're in an NR3, which allows a historical conversion for, and you'd have a protected ADU. That would allow a protected ADU on that property as well because it's in the NR3. Yeah. And then you'd have a local bus. I support special permit. I think this is framed as, do we want second at all? Do we want it by special permit? Do we want to allow higher maximum lot size for like a large carriage house? Is that what the slide means?
[Zac Bears]: OK. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't want to misinterpret it. Yeah, I wonder if I can see where it starts. I think in general, the genesis of the state law and the ADU protection and all of this I mean, the intent is good, but I think it's structurally confusing. I think it's intended to say, we need more units, and this is a way to do it without the state changing Chapter 48 to say, you have to allow two units everywhere. It's a little bit of an end run, and I think it creates, for us, there's just some negative externalities here. And I think mostly what I'm getting at is around the historical conversion. I think we're creating a thing with historical conversion that adds like a third layer to the whole problem where it's, how do you know how many units can be allowed on a lot? And I'm just wondering if there's a way to Could we say that we would allow a special permit, a second ADU by special permit, but not if it's a historic conversion or something like that? So it's a little bit simpler for people to understand, especially when it comes to like, you'd have a principal structure, then a historical conversion, then the ADU, and then the second special permit ADU. I just think it adds, it's again, one of those things where the layers are really stacked on top of each other.
[Zac Bears]: I think I very quickly used the word carriage house. Yeah, carriage house is exactly. Garage, garage is what I meant.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. And I think my question is just like, there's probably not a lot of properties with supplies, right? And that's maybe not worth our time at this point to really get into it that far, but you have a single family, it's NR3, you have historic conversion, it's of significant size, significant lot size, so you can put four units inside the structure, then you could add the protected ADU, then you could have a special permit ADU detached or attached, and it just, yeah, so.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just thinking if they're doing it all, they're probably doing it all at once, so they probably are going to maximize.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. OK, thanks.
[Zac Bears]: All of the parking requirements are for off-street parking. it would be on the lot itself. So the private way, public way, it doesn't matter. It's about the parking on the lot. So whatever the parking mandate is that the city imposes, you know, if one per whatever, I think we have a one per 80, it would be off street parking. So that's my... Paula might have a...
[Zac Bears]: It is within the authority of the city to define the parking mandates.
[Zac Bears]: It can't be, but we can make it lower. We can be more permissive, we can't be less permissive, I think is the discussion that we previously had. So I just wanted to add that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We couldn't say it's two, but we could say it's zero.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not putting that forward as an idea. I just want to make sure when we get to the parking that we have the scope of the authority. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If you could just, I was just seconding, and if you could just go to the upcoming meetings before we vote and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just had one request. I know we make a lot of requests of you. Could we do a May and June version of this. And like, this is great slide to show everything that's happened before. But we're getting crowded.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, exactly. Right. Yeah, just the going forward, I think would be helpful. And we can get that up on the zoning website. And in addition to people seeing all the things we've done up to this point, but we have a lot. And we don't even have the June dates on there. So for the council, for this committee and the council. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole April 30 2025 is called to order, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President, President Bears, President five present to absent the meeting is called to order. Action discussion item 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 preliminary budget meeting to this will be the second preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal year 26 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present collector treasurer metric community media parking and veterans will take folks in that order. Just a reminder for folks watching at home. We had a meeting last night where we did an overview of the budget talked about the current projection that the requests from our departments are about a million dollars more than the expected revenue for the city, and that the administration is still working to bring the spending in line with expected revenue, because we are required to have a balanced budget. And that is the job. They're also looking at, hopefully, maybe the revenue side may be going up a little bit, but we don't know. right now. So we have four departments with us tonight. And this we're going to also have additional preliminary budget meetings on May 6th, May 20th and May 21st. We'll hear from the rest of our city department heads before we get a submission from the mayor at the end of the month of the fiscal year 2026 budget. And with that, we will start with collector treasure. We do have Judy with us. And we can. I'll just read off really quickly and then recognize you to, you know, give any narrative that you want to give about your department, about the changes in the budget and your, you know, what's happened this year plans for next year, whatever you'd like to do. But first I'll just say that the fiscal year 25 budget, that's the current year, was $757,494. That's increasing to $780,059. And it's an increase both in the personnel expenses and the ordinary expenses. So it's a total increase of $22,565. And that is happening mostly in the fixed cost growth area where we have contractual raises and step increases in the COLA for staff. And there was a data processing contract increase, the payroll cost increase as well. And that's the vast majority of that increase there. And then there's also one new expense, which is increase needed to attend Mass Collector Treasurer Association classes and conference for recertification. So with that, I will turn it over to the Collective Transfer. We can hear you now.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions from members of the council on the collector treasurer budget that we have in front of us? Seeing none, are there any questions from members of the public on the collector treasurer? You can raise your hand on Zoom or approach the podium. All right, thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, wait, sorry, I have a question.
[Zac Bears]: Ah, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Next, we will go to our Medford Community Meeting, I believe. Yep, Medford Community Media. So we have Kevin with us. And as folks know, Medford Community Media produces, it's our public access station here in the city. The budget last year, fiscal 25 was $208,424. The proposed budget is $215,061, an increase of $6,600. And that is almost all going into the step raises and COLA increases for staff and a little bit of cable license negotiations, which is both under the fixed cost growth. These are costs just to keep doing what we've been doing. So with that, And Kevin, tell us if you'd like to share anything more, and then if there's any highlights from the year, any plans for next year, and then we'll go to questions from the council.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do you have any questions for Kevin? Councilor Luzardo?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Great. So see no questions from Mr. Council. I have a couple brief the negotiation of the license. Um, that is how we get our peg fees. And I guess I'm just wondering I see that there was some actual money spent this year that wasn't budgeted for. And I'm just wondering how that process goes and what can we expect? Are we going to maintain the PEG fee? That negotiation only happens once every so often. So I'm just kind of, I think this might be the first time we've done it since I've been on the council. So if you can go into it a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that about covers it. Great, thanks, yeah. I'm sure KP's on top of this, but just throw my two cents in at least on, You know, we know that cord cutting is happening and if we maintain the percentage of minutes to maintain the money because of the drop. I mean, I don't know what leverage and leeway is available in the law. I'm sure it's all state law and regulation, but, you know, creative ways to think about you know, maybe people who just are internet subscribers contributing, even if they're not cable, you know, we have so much, we do so much streaming, we have the, you know, system video on demand system. So I don't know if that's allowable or whatever, or if they'd ever accept it as part of it, but, you know, certainly I hope, if not, that we can at least send the message that the law needs to catch up with the times a little bit on this, because I don't think we want, we can't afford to not have public access and provide such a valuable service to the community.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, yeah, and if you do hear any more about that from your colleagues in public access and there's value to this council, you know, maybe considering a resolution to ask the state legislature to act. I'm sure we members would consider it. The other thing I just noticed that your equipment other budget has some room left in it and sort of if you're gonna put some POs in before the end of the year.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Thank you. I see no further questions from members of the Council. Are there any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom, about Metro Community Media? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. All right, we're gonna do parking. Welcome. Thank you, hello. So I'm just gonna read really quickly. We had our fiscal 25 budget, $951,741. The fiscal 26 proposed $1,074,840. And that was an increase of $123,099. And it looks like most of that 102,000 is in personnel. And then we had also a 19,000 increase in the amended contract for the pay by phone, license plate recognition technology, increasing contracted monthly fees, increased enforcement activity, and that was all in the fixed cost growth bucket. Correct. Great. So with that, if you want to tell us, talk a little bit more about the budget, tell us you know, accomplishments in the last year, you know, I know you're new in the last year, but sure. And what you're hoping for the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. No, that's helpful. One thing we don't get to see here in this picture, and if you don't have the data, you know, we can put in a request or I would put one in, but just, you know, you in some ways are unique as a department that you bring in revenue. And I was just wondering what your annual revenue was or your expectations of it for this year and your expectations of it for next year?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's helpful. I think, you know, for, I know like a big cost driver, this was the first contract for the team in the parking department. So that was really the significant increase, but excuse me, I think just for me, it would be really helpful to have revenue numbers across like the fiscal year, so from July 1, 24 through June 30, 25. And I think it'd be useful for us to, when we talk about your budget, to see that and then maybe also see like the balance outstanding on citations, things like that, because it is really more of a in and out versus, you know, most of the departments are not fee driven or, you know, they're not generating revenue in the same way. And just along those lines, yeah, I just think that would be really helpful for us to be able to see how much money is the department bringing in the fiscal year versus what's going out. And I just remember my other question, are there any expenses that you guys spend that aren't included in this budget? Like, do you have any spending outside of the, like, for example, other departments will get a grant and then you know, that wouldn't be reflected here, like they've paid for something with a grant.
[Zac Bears]: So this reflects like the all the payments for the all the services that we
[Zac Bears]: Great, awesome, yeah, so if you could, you know, get back to us and some of the columns and let us know, you know, what the revenue has been, you know, and it's just helpful, I'm sure, you know, certainly for permits and a lot of people think in normal years and budget season, we think in fiscal year, so it's helpful for us to get it from that July to June timeframe, so we can see the self-sustaining. And I think, you know, for me, what I'm getting at is I'm interested to see that, you know, better enforcement of the parking rules, better permit offering, more fees. Are we talking about moving from self-sustaining to revenue generating? And what does that mean for your department, for the rest of the city?
[Zac Bears]: To date.
[Zac Bears]: And any data you have on that would be interesting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I mean, I think we, I don't know, Matt, I think would love to see all the data.
[Zac Bears]: No, they're all just mad at me because I'm talking too much. So yeah, no, I think the data is really helpful. And more what I was interested in is like, what's the total outstanding balance of all the citations that people haven't paid? You know, that that's of interest to me, because it's essentially a something we should be getting.
[Zac Bears]: I can tell you that the University of Massachusetts got me a couple of years with that.
[Zac Bears]: I've had to pay my tickets to get my parking permit and I think that's just fair.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. Would someone be willing to make my request in the form of a motion for the committee report? Thank you. Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, I guess. We're a little punch drunk here. I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: All right, do we have any further questions on the parking department? Members of the Council, seeing none, online or in person, do we have any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Yeah, and I think, you know, we're looking at the budget, so sometimes Sometimes we talk more, sometimes we talk less, but I also know that like the folks out on the street have sometimes a very difficult job and folks are not always happy to get a parking ticket or have to pay a parking ticket. And, you know, we've heard a lot about that. So I hope that maybe some of that is easing up as the new department has, people have settled in in the city with the new department and, you know, just want to If you could take that back to the team and obviously to yourself that we understand sometimes that it's a really difficult experience and we are really thankful for all the work that you're doing.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Just on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, by the affirmative, two absent, motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Veterans Services. We have Director Shaw with us. I'll start reading. Oh, you're already here. Last year, fiscal 25, we had a budget $444,603.44. This year, we're looking at a $448,716, an increase of $4,112.56. And that is step increase and COLA increase and clerical contract increases, all fixed cost growth. And with that, if there's anything more you'd like to say about the specifics of the budget, any highlights from the past year, any exciting plans for next year, the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. I really wanna just start by thanking you for your resourcefulness and your dedication to our veterans in the community. I know you do a lot with the budget that you have and then you go and above and beyond to try to bring in whatever resources are possible for our veterans. And it's just really great to hear. I appreciate, I love hearing the, what have we done? What are we doing list? Because I think it really just shows things that maybe don't show up in budget line items or don't show up anywhere else other than you being able to tell everyone what's happening. So thank you so much for everything that you've been doing and what you're going to be doing for the next year. I'll go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: You can just put a resolution on also, if you wanted to talk about in residence services. I think we don't need a motion. I was all right.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yep. And put on a resolution if you want to talk about it in Resident Services. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions or discussion from members of the Council? Seeing none, are there any questions or discussion from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Hold on a second. Thank you. Out of order. Thank you. Director Shaw for being here. Really appreciate it. And, you know, feel free to be in touch with us anytime about any way that we can help. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Is there a motion to report the questions and motions out to the administration to keep the paper in committee and adjourn? On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Levee. Well, you know. We are a deliberative body and we shall be deliberate. We're deliberating. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Two absent. Motion passes. And the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council committee to the whole meeting, April 29 2025 is called to order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan. Vice President Collins Councils are also Leming Councilor scarpelli is absent, Council saying, President Bears, present six present one apps and the meeting is called to order, there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole at 6pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall, 85 George B has to drive mid for Massachusetts and via zoom action discussion items 25039 annual budget process for fiscal year 2026. Preliminary budget meeting. Number one, this will be the first preliminary budget meeting of the FY 26 budget process. Mayor has communicated the following departments will be present Council on aging, finance and procurement. And just for note, the process up to this point, Councilors submitted individual budget recommendations for consideration and many of the whole March 13. We held a meeting of committee of the whole March 18 joint meeting of the city council and school committee March 19 City Council submitted collective budget recommendations to the mayor March 25, and we are holding preliminary budget meetings between now and May 21 with our department heads, and the mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council by Friday May 31 2025 upcoming Preliminary budget meetings and committee of the whole will be Tuesday today, April 29th at 6 p.m. Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Tuesday, May 6th, 2025 at 6 p.m. Tuesday, May 20th, 2025 at 6 p.m. And Wednesday, May 21st, 2025 at 6 p.m. So with that, it's really up to you guys. I know Bob's here for finance and maybe also an overview. Maybe Nina, you're here for an overview. Pam's here for council on aging, whichever order you'd like to take that in, we'll take you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just really quickly, I think, and I think it's important to clarify. There's a right now with the budgets that you're working with, when you say a deficit, you mean that right now we're projecting that our expenses, if we wanted to spend everything that all the departments want to spend right now, would be a million dollars more than the revenue that we would receive. So we're not in a in a deficit, we are right now trying to figure out how to get expenses down to what we expect revenues to be or revenues up a little bit more before next fiscal year and this is for the budget starting July one and I just think that's just good context for anyone watching maybe for the first time to understand. And we're talking about next year's budget and from some of the documents and some of the conversation you just had. The real big things that are driving costs are the fixed costs that drive the budget up every year. And we're talking about contractual obligations to our employees based on their union contracts, the healthcare through the state group insurance commission, the pension liability that we're funding, and the DPW trash contract. And I think, given just some of the preliminary numbers, we could argue that that million dollars comes from any one of the four budgets this year. I think they're all up about, I think even trash is almost up a million this year. So we, as in past years, are seeing that our fixed costs, the things that we need to pay because we are contractually obligated to provide them just to maintain existing services and the existing staff level are going up faster than our revenues are going up. And that is true even with the override. So we are where we were before. I just wanna ask you one question, then I'll go to Councilor Callahan, which is if we had not passed the override, given where we're at at this point in the budget, what would we be looking at for our schools or for the city without those funds?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I just think that's important grounding context for people are gonna hear Oh, well, we didn't override and we still have a deficit. Well, that's, that's how much things are. That's what the costs are impacting us. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other questions from members of the council at this time about the budget? Seeing none, I just have one more actual question on a grounding context comment. You were mentioning, you're looking at local receipts and new growth, you're finalizing new growth, and you've looked at the cherry sheets. Is there any hope that some portion of that million may come from maybe some amount of additional revenue as you finalize those numbers versus removing things from the budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I just wanted to clarify, because it sounded like you said it could go either way. And I'm just wondering, is it possible that it sounds like you're basing it like this is the revenue number that we're going to have, and most likely the revenue number is not going to change too significantly either direction?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. If there's no further questions on the general overview of the budget. I think we could go directly to talking about this finance and procurement budget. Oh, I think. Yeah, I think Shane has to turn them on for them to show up here. Great, all right, we'll stick with finance. I'm just gonna read it out really quickly. We have fiscal 26 proposed personnel, 620,295. Fiscal 26 proposed ordinary expenses, 259,840 for a total of 881.35. And that's up from 854,314. So an increase of 25,800 or about 3%. And that is coming from clerical contract raises and a 2% COLA for non-union employees. FY26 audit costs are projected to be increasing by that, by about 10,000. The cost for the admins program increased by 7% expenses. And also there was an advertising increase expense and the lease for the copier and a new printer for checks went up, so. doesn't seem like anything that we don't need.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And just for anyone watching the audit is the independent audit that we do have all the city finances every year. And admins is the financial program we're currently using for city. Right. Right. Do we have any questions on the finance and procurement budget. Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying when you say a north of a million dollars are we talking one time costs.
[Zac Bears]: Well, maybe some good news I'm hearing is we've maybe laid some foundations to enable us to do the project. But it sounds like, to me, acquisition and training are one-time costs in the million to mid-million, $1 million range, maybe more than I'm seeing Nina point higher in the sky.
[Zac Bears]: The low single millions.
[Zac Bears]: And then I guess the only reason I'm doing that is because right now, From what you said, I'm drawn to the idea that we are paying an annual subscription costs for admins, SoftRight and Harper's right now. Yes. And I'm wondering if the combined annual cost of Munis, moving all of them eventually to Munis would eventually even out or maybe be lower.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we'll go to, I think I saw Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Lame, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would consider that a motion by Councilor Callahan to request that the finance director put together a one page document outlining the process to move to.
[Zac Bears]: There's a second on the motion. We'll go to Council Chief Steph.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And could we maybe request that by September... First? First of the day? Was it the day I was going to say? I was going to say September 30th.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Is there a second on that motion? Councilor Lazzaro? All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Any further questions, Councilor Kellogg? All right, we'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: That's all. I don't want to belabor this too much. I do a, you know, one 100th the size version of what you do in my day job. But essentially, what you're saying is we'd be this process is at the end of it, we would have had to reteach everyone who buys anything in the city how to buy something. make sure all the payroll stuff moves over smoothly and everyone who was paid by the city continues to be paid correctly, and also reteach not just people who work in the building, but also introduce residents to new ways to pay most of their taxes or fees to the city through the Treasury Department.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. OK. And I just put that out there. I agree with, I think, the spirit of the council, which is to say, there's no better time than soon to get started on this. But also, I mean, essentially, we'd be talking for at least some period of time, we'd be paying for the new system, continuing to pay for the old system, probably running both systems in parallel, until we're sure that the new system is not going to fail out for an essential, you know, obviously, you can't miss a payroll run, right? So I understand the scope and scale of what you're talking about, but I think this document is a good start. I really think soon after that, we should get into the nitty gritty of what does it look like in the CIP to pay for the one-time costs here? How significantly, obviously, depending on bidding and what solution ends up being selected, are we talking about a huge, know, $250,000, $500,000, $750,000 impact on the operating budget? Are we talking about like, 50 or 100,000? Because I do think that when we're talking about constantly being in a million dollar shortfall, when we're trying to make the budget every year, that would be impactful to me, you know, if we're talking about another million versus 100,000, that order of power, but just appreciate you going through it. The only other thing I wanted to ask, you went through how an AP workflow would work with a new system. What does it look like now?
[Zac Bears]: OK. And I think that's just the kind of hidden cost element of this, I think, is something that it might be worth noting or trying to note in the document you come up with over the next few months. Because that's the one piece of this where I think there may be huge benefits in the sense that if we can get a system that's much more efficient, how many hours of work are we saving people in your office, but also all the people putting in POs and everyone working in treasury that could go to do something else? Because it's not, you're not seeing it on the line item, but if a clerk is spending 10 hours a week or 15 hours a week in a department doing mostly this, and under a new system, it'd be two to five hours a week. That's pretty significant financial impact on the city in the long run as well. So I know that's hard to quantify, and I'm not asking you to quantify it, but I just think it's a part of the conversation. The goal of this is not just maybe making it easier to put the city's financial, put the Munis module to show it on the website, it's also trying to make it so that the people in that building can focus more time on other work rather than having to move paper back and forth to buy paper, for example. So if you want to comment on any of that, I don't want to not let you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so on the back end you're saving dozens and hundreds of hours But it's a huge amount of fun to get there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I I appreciate the discussion, appreciate you writing something up. And last thing, you know, I think, I still think this is important. I still think it's an issue. You know, when you first came on and a couple of years ago, when I would say there was less familiarity with the complexity of the systems that we have, you know, I hope you're here through however long you want to stay here and through us transitioning to new modules and a new financial system. how are we doing on the, you know, what for lack of an artful term, I often in operations and finance work called the bus factor, which is if suddenly we did not have Bob Dickinson here, how are we able to transfer the knowledge that you have or the ability of someone to come in and say, I understand enough how these systems work that we can do a budget, do an audit, nevermind just running payroll and AP and stuff like that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah just if you know if let's assume you you move on or you retire or whatever.
[Zac Bears]: You hit the lottery let's let's make it positive we'll call it the lottery factor you know.
[Zac Bears]: You hit the mega millions.
[Zac Bears]: Kidnapped by aliens you know we could go any direction but you know and someone needs to come in and keep running the city. I know that was a tough that there was a lot of training that had to go into getting to understand how our old systems work and integrate so
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I appreciate that. And, and, you know, I say it to kind of go towards counseling points, but also to note like, There's people who have been using these systems a long time. There are quirks in these systems. There are probably... little things that, you know, someone learned and now they know, you know, it makes things much faster, I would guess. Or, you know, when they're looking something up, they have that institutional knowledge and experience. That means that even though the system is clunky and complicated, once they learn, oh, soft write, if I click this button to connect it with admins this way, it's much easier than trying to look at Google it or whatever, you know. And I think, you know, again, it's more work for an office it's overworked and you are the first department we're hearing from and I'm guessing that every department we hear from will be talking about under resourcing and being overworked. But I think one of the reasons we, at least for me being on the council in the fiscal 23 budget process and, and, you know, what happened there, and that interim period between the CFO positions. One of the reasons I think, and Councilor Tseng being here too, and Councilor Collins, and I'm sure Councilor Scarpelli would say it as well, one of the reasons I think we're so intent and focused on this idea of moving to a new system is we saw what happened when the existing system didn't have the people with that institutional knowledge and they were learning that institutional knowledge on the job, trying to put together the budget. It was not certainly the process we have now, which I think is really great. And I'm saying this mostly to be positive and say, you know, happy with how things are working and impressed at like, it's, it's never, there was a double entry or anything. It's like the system works, you get us the information, even though it's not the best system. something if we're gonna be talking about like a three, five, six year timeline or more for transitioning to a new system that a Bob and Courtney's thoughts or a Bob Courtney and Judy's and Lisa's thoughts book of here's the workarounds that we found might be like something like an SOP around some of those kind of the quirkiness of our existing system might be worth having on hand just for the possibility of, you know, I'm just thinking back to that specific case that we experienced together.
[Zac Bears]: You know, yeah, no and I appreciate that and I think you know even just collating those and saying, in case of a fire, break this glass, here's where the book is. It could go, it would, you know, I never want to be in that budget again. This is, you know, it's not great, but it's way better. All right, any further questions for finance and procurement? Seeing none, we will go to Council on Aging. Thank you. Thanks, Pam, for sitting through and me kind of trying to end the council talking about financial and procurement systems. I'll just read really quickly. We have fiscal 26 proposed personnel budget $264,064 and ordinary expenses $16,000. And this is an increase of about $3,000 or 1% from $277,157 to $280,064. And it looks like all the increases are in the salary and one office equipment. So about $5,400 in COLAs, $20 increase in an office equipment contract. And it looks like there was a reduction in some of the proposed budget for telephone and internet in the ordinary expenses. With that, I'll go to you, Director Pam Kelly, Council on Aging.
[Zac Bears]: Feel free to add anything you want and then we'll go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions for Pam, Council on Aging? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you very much. I just have a comment and a question. I just want to say thank you for working with members of the council, you know, the whole team over there, Suzanne and everyone else for setting up the listening sessions. I know that several Councilors have been engaging more with the senior center in an official formal capacity, not just coming to events, but having those listening sessions. So I really want to thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. And then my just my other question, I know, the general fund budget, you know, this budget pays for people, and the office supplies, basically, correct, but you get some other funds, could you tell us, you know, state and other grant funds than what that programming looks like?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And yeah, I just think the other great thing about this process, and there's so much context, this is the city budget.
[Zac Bears]: But the city budget isn't actually all the money that city departments spend on the things that they do. And so, for example, you know, it's almost you know, another hundred something, almost $200,000. Correct. Yeah. That you use for all the other programs that absolutely our seniors love. So I just think, you know, as much as we can talk about reminding everyone, you know, this, you might see this piece of paper and say, well, what are we doing? The answer is it's coming from somewhere else.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Well, thank you so much. I'm seeing no further questions. Do you have any motions? All right, thank you, Director Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: That was our two departments and our overview for today for the Committee of the Whole meeting. Do we have any further discussion or is there a motion? On the motion to keep the paperwork in committee, refer out the motions and questions, and adjourn. I don't think we had any. We had the motion from Councilor. That's from Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. We'll be in regular meeting in just a minute for seven, a little after seven o'clock. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: I thought everyone was saying I was the problem, and I thought you had the solution.
[Zac Bears]: Eighth regular meeting Medford City Council April 2025 is called to order Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears present six present one absent please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Is there a motion to table Councilor Scarpelli's resolution until he's present? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to table 25062 to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We have two papers under suspension. Is there a motion to take papers under suspension? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers under suspension, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed motion passes 25068 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Metro family network director Marie Cassidy on her retirement and extend our deepest gratitude for over 30 years of service to the community Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and you did not cut I'm stage managing Medford kids are going last on this one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying yeah and I'll just add director Cassidy's 30 years, pretty much coincide with how long I've been in Medford, and I know a lot I didn't move here till I was four. Don't tell anyone. I know a lot of the young people who I grew up with built lifelong connections and their parents built lifelong connections in community through the MFN. And I know parents who are still involved in supporting the MFN whose kids are 30, 35 years old, because it's so valuable to them. So, you know, when I think of Maria, I think of words like joy and wonder and community, and most importantly, just an incredible laser focus on the kids in this community having really happy experiences and moments and building community together. And I don't think she'll ever really know how important the teddy bear picnic is. So with that, I'll just leave it there. Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor said seconded by seconded by Council is our all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25069 offered under suspension by Councilor Callahan, whereas the Chevrolet theater is a historic thriving cultural center used by our residents which brings people together from all over greater Boston, be it resolved that the city council invite Cindy Watson from friends and friends of the Chevrolet to attend the public works and facilities meeting to inform our community about the state of the Chevrolet theater.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: The clerk's informing me that he did see Chris Kristofferson. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to public works and facilities seconded by, seconded by Councilor Collins all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Records records of the meeting of April 8th were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion to table to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Records of the special meeting of April 15th were passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I report the committees is there a motion to join on the motion of Councilors saying to join the reports of committees seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. All the any post motion passes. 25048 offered by President Bears this is committee the whole April 8. This was on parking, the new parking director, also on the GLX parking zone, and a potential change the parking ordinance. Councilor Collins, is there anything you'd like to add. You can say no. That's our columns.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Could you forward me the ordinance for our next regular meeting agenda? Thank you. Councilor Collins planning and permitting committee April 9.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, April 15th.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And we have community the whole April 16th. This was the CDBG public meeting discussing the CDBG proposals for community organizations. And we have a hearing on that in just two agenda items. So we will be taking action on that tonight. Is there a motion to approve the joint reports? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by. Seconded by council Lazzaro, all those in favor. Opposed, motion passes. Hearings, 25036, petition to amend the special permit 282, Mystic Ave. I'm declaring this continued public hearing open. The petitioner has requested that we further continue this to our next regular meeting. With that, is there anyone who'd like to comment on this at this time in the public hearing? It will be continued to May 13th and there will be further opportunity to comment. Seeing none, I'm declaring the public hearing this temporarily closed to be continued. Is there a motion to continue? On the motion to continue the public hearing to May 13th by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25060, submitted by the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Community Development Block Grant Action Plan for Fiscal 26. Notice of a public hearing the Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing. Sorry about that. wrong sheet. Legal Notice City of Medford Community Development Block Grant Program five year consolidated plan program your 2025 annual action plan and citizen participation plan. Public hearing a public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council on Tuesday, April 29 2025 at 7pm the purpose of this public hearing will be to invite the general public and representatives of public service agencies to express comments regarding the city's five year consolidated plan and annual action plan, and on the city's housing and community development needs and development of proposed activities. The consolidated plan includes broad goals and objectives to address priority needs with resources available from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, including a five-year strategy for use of Community Development Block Grant CDBG funding for program years 2025 to 2029. The action plan contains the proposed use of CDBG funds for the program year, which extends from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, program year 2025. The hearing will also invite public comments regarding the city's updated CDBG Citizen Participation Plan, detailing opportunities for public participation, and the development of plans and reports related to its CDBG funding. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability will be requesting that the Medford City Council authorize Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, official representative of the City of Medford, to submit the Program Year 2025 to 2029 Consolidated Plan, the Program Year 2025 Annual Action Plan, application for funds and all other assurances and certifications to HUD, The city is applying for an estimated $1,384,050 in block grant funds for program year 2025. Funds are estimated in details on the increasing or decreasing of proposed activities and budget. Once HUD has notified, the city of its final allocation can be found within the draft annual action plan. If you need reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this hearing, please contact Nicholas Karinje at email nkaringe at medford-ma.gov or by phone at 781 3 9 3 2 4 3 9. All right. Um, is there anything that Laurel you'd like to add? Uh, before we open the public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm going to open the public hearing unless Councilor Collins, do you have a question for Laurel? I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak in favor, opposition or otherwise has comment on the city's action plan, consolidated plan and any other CDBG related matter. Public hearing is open. You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium if you have a comment on the CDBG action plan. And Laurel, I'm assuming that the Office of Planning Development Sustainability is in support.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Just gonna give it a second. Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one in person, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Can you submit that motion to the clerk? Thank you. A motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? I'm seeing Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes Councilor Collins if you could take the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Resolution is relatively self-explanatory. I know we have some residents here tonight. Also notice I'm taller than Kit. But we were all surprised, I think it's fair to say, pretty much everyone on the city side of things and local residents by the relatively quick construction, installation and operation of a new platform at West Medford commuter rail station. I will say that it's a long time coming to provide accessibility for all residents to the commuter rail at the West Medford stop. But I certainly didn't receive any communication about it before it was put in place. And what we're seeing is that there are negative impacts on the surrounding residents from loud sounds on the announcement system and very bright lights at times when there are not even trains running, nevermind. You know, it's not just peak hours it's happening. These reported to be happening all night sometimes. We have constant communication issues with Keolis and the MBTA as well as DCR and MassDOT and MWRA and all the other state agencies who have infrastructure in the city of Medford, but are not particularly responsive to residents or local government. So, we have some, I know there's some residents present who live close by to the new platform, who are facing negative impacts, and I would move that we submit this resolution to kill us and the MBTA, as well as the mayor and director Blake, so that they can use it. in any of their own communications with the relevant parties to push them to act to improve the conditions of the platform. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. Thank you to the local residents who came out tonight and who have been emailing Keolis and the city and collecting all this information and buying light meters and doing all of the work that I think, you know, really should be on Keolis as our privatized commuter rail operator, making a profit off of our public infrastructure to do. That's an aside that I will now stop but You know, we have had constant issues. Like, I hear the desire for a guarantee. I want a guarantee. We all want a guarantee. We spent six months with your neighbors on the other side, on the Bower Street side with the rail ties issue when they were re-putting the new rail ties in and like off-gassing. And it's just a horrible situation. That was horrible too. And it's like, we're back here right again with Keolis and the T both. Um, you know, we kept on them for that. We're going to keep on them for this. It really sucks. That's really mostly what I'm saying. It's just, it really sucks. And we're going to keep on them, but I don't know, um, how fast they're going to move on it. I think the suggestion of like, let's shut this off until we get it. Right. But the most, most frustrating part for me of what you were saying is just the change. Like you can't even expect, or you, you had a change, like things got better and then they got worse again. And that's kind of the, You know, I'm sure it's not intentional or whatever, but it's a gaslighting right like you're now not secure in your own home about like what to expect from day to day, week to week. I am hopeful that we can try to communicate with them more immediately to just at least go back to the conditions that were a little bit better and then actually engage with you. But I, you know, mostly I'm kind of just being bad news, Zack, and just saying it's really tough to engage with them. And we've had a lot of problems with Keolis along the line for a while. So we're here, we're going to keep fighting. And it's really frustrating so many just so many problems coming out of them. So thank you for advocating on behalf of your neighbors and being here tonight, and for all the information you've given us to try to help. And to Jen's point around Medford-Tufts, I do believe we're getting a redesign of that section of Boston Avenue because of the Tufts Dormitory project that's going to get rid of the the concrete, the strange curb, not curb thing that blocks access to cars and buses. So that's still, it's going to be some time, but I think the Medford Tufts issue is going to get somewhat worked out, at least in terms of access. I'm not sure about the bus stop placement. And just wanted to put that information out there. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank Councilor Lazzaro for her first term energy, and I hope it is always our all terms energy eventually. Point taken.
[Zac Bears]: Communications from the Mayor, 25061. Submitted by Mayor Marianne Legault-Kern. Request for food truck permits for trolley dogs, May through July at Hormel Stadium. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the City of Medford. In addition to City Council approval, vendors are required to adhere to Health Department food and safety requirements. Business name, trolley dogs. dates and time 510 25 516 25 6725 621 25 and 7 625 4pm to 7pm location Hormel Stadium 90 Lucas Street, Massachusetts, and event. uh, ultimate Frisbee, uh, Boston glory games about the event, ultimate Frisbee association, tournaments and games for players and spectators. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely bringing the live up here in mayor. Do we have any discussion by members of the council? And we also representative of Boston glory here, seeing no immediate questions from members of the council. We'll go to Peter from Boston glory, Peter.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Yes. And if there's anything else you want to add about the, the ultimate Frisbee association and what you guys do, we're happy to lend you our platform for this minute or two.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you so much. I'm going to Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. All right. And the clerk enjoys it as well. He tells me some things when we're standing up here. I'm never sure if he wants me to say it or not, but in this case, I know that he enjoys Frisbee. Any further discussion by members of the council? Any further comments by Peter or any members of the public on this matter? Seeing none, on the motion to approve by Councilor Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you all very much. 25064 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Appropriation of free cash and rescission of loan order. One second here. Going through all these food permits. There we go. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council regarding free cash appropriation and loan order rescission on school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate $5 million and zero cents of free cash for the purpose of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps including associated automated controls and structural and architectural work electrical work and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrews School, and the acquisition and installation of solar panels and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn School, including the cost of planning, design, architecture, and engineering services, and all other costs incidental and related thereto. And rescind the $5,000,000.00 cent loan order under Resolution 24510, which was approved in the third reading at the City Council's January 14, 2025 meeting and closed as an original copy of the loan order. This appropriation of free cash will allow the city to reduce the amount to be permanently borrowed in the future to save an estimated $300,000 per year in the FY 27 budget, and for the term of the loan, the total project cost of $30,775,000 without a free cash appropriation would add to the city budget an estimated $1.834 million per year for 30 years. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brian Olingo, current mayor. Just gonna say two things before we move on. This, number one, We do have eligible for third reading the loan order for the rest of this tonight, so maybe we take that up right after this so that we can have the discussions together and we don't have to come back and provide the context again. The other thing I want to say is, when we were talking about a question six in. last November. This is exactly the reason why question six was on the ballot. You can see that a project of this guy size about $30 million, which is what the new fire station was about expected to cost has an impact of 1.834 million on the city's annual operating budget. So that is, you know, That is what we lost with the loss of that. The city budget, as we discussed earlier at our committee of the whole meeting, continues to be very tight. If the overrides hadn't passed, we would have been talking about drastic and significant cuts across the school system and our city departments. And with the projects needed in our schools, the city budget, as it currently stands, is facing a nearly $2 million annual impact from a project of this size and scale. You know, we're going to talk about the specifics here, but that's the larger context of the essentially continuing tight budgets and significant needs of our community when it comes to capital improvements. With that, just talking specifically about using free cash instead of the loan order to save an estimated $300,000 per year in debt repayments. Is there anything you'd like to add, Director Dickinson, and we also have Superintendent Cushing and Brenda Pike as well, and maybe some folks from the design team, I'm not sure. Oh, there you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Dickinson. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We do have the superintendent and Brenda if you want to. We had a presentation when we did the loan order on April 8th. that the total project cost was $30,775,000. Is it just an updated number from what originally it was? There were some factors that went into it that Peter and Brenda, Bob, obviously, if you want to go first, but there. That's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we want to do a Peter and Brenda?
[Zac Bears]: December yeah I think if you wanted to speak to it really quickly Brenda thank you when you came to us in early April there had been some escalations that required the total I'll let you speak to it. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any further questions for Director Dickinson? Seeing none, and just so I understand, oh, you want to go, Councilor Collins? No. I just had one question. So just so I understand the mechanics of it, we approved the loan order, which allowed the spending to start on procuring supplies for that $5 million pre.
[Zac Bears]: There's not going to be any delay or pause in the project by moving from the loan order to the free cash is essentially what my question is.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further questions from the council, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: for first reading a motion to this is an appropriation for cash. It's not doesn't require multiple readings. So it's a motion to approve the request for appropriation from the mayor and the rescission of the loan order by Vice President Collins, seconded by Council Zorro. Any further discussion on that motion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion on the motion by members of the public? I see one person here in the chamber. If there's anyone on Zoom who'd like to speak, please raise your hand and we'll go to you next, but we'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record. And you'll have three minutes plus as much time as it takes to get the timer.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think. you know, to the point, and I was gonna bring this up as we moved through this, the distinction that we were making, or at least that I was making, was not between long-term and short-term needs, it was between recurring expenses and one-time expenses. And, you know, where free cash is a fund that happens because either the city raises more money than it expected, or spends less money than expected, or in some years, maybe both, It's not reliable recurring revenue, so it shouldn't ever be used to fund recurring expenses that need to be funded on an ongoing basis. And what we're talking about here, and with the paper that the commenter mentioned, are one-time capital expenses. And that's what reserve funds should be used for. Not things like the best teachers contract that the city's ever seen that was funded by the new recurring revenue from the question seven and eight override. Do we have any further discussion by members of the public on the appropriation of free cash for the HVAC program at the Andrews and see none. We have the motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve the appropriation Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Vice Chair Leming, Councilor Leming,
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25050 off the table by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. All those in favor? All opposed motion passes to 5050 loan order 25 million 775,000 school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds supplemental in city council April 8 2025 approved for first reading advertised April 18 2025 Boston Herald in city council April 29 2025 eligible for third reading. This is the loan order we just talked about. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. On the motion to approve for third reading by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any further discussion? Oh, by Vice President Collins. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no discussion by Councilors, we will go to discussion by members of the public. You can either come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti, Mr. Castagnetti, I will request you to unmute and you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You are on, yes. And this is about the HVAC loan order.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Definitely agree that it's a significant number and a major impact on the city budget. I can point you towards the, I think this is our fourth meeting between a regular meeting and city council committee the whole maybe our fifth meeting where we've heard from Assistant Superintendent Cushing and Planner Brenda Pike and the team working on this about why this project is necessary and what they've done, which is extensive work to mitigate the cost and be cost conscious for our residents. So, you know, there's a lot of stuff in the record, meeting recordings, meeting minutes and documentation on the school's website and on the council's website that I just want to point residents towards to better understand the project more than what we've talked about tonight.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And we are, um, I'm hoping we will have that be part of our meetings on the 20th or the 21st, at least a primer. And just to add to that, I think the fiscal 23 to fiscal 28 CIP, the capital improvement plan or investment plan, or can I remember exactly what it is? I think that had a over a hundred million dollars just in over those five years. So, you know, and I'm adding to your point, uh, We could spend all free cash on this project or 30 million in that CIP and we'd still need to come up with the other 70 million through borrowing or some other means so it really just again speaks to the scope and scale of the capital need, nevermind the operating need which we're also talking about. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I think, you know, just to be brief, Certainly whoever came up with the term free cash didn't expect it would be interpreted the way that I think most people interpret it. But this may be another way of getting at the point that Councilor Leming, Councilor Callahan and Councilor Collins and every person on this council has tried to make at various points, which is free cash is cash that is, it is a reserve. It's a reserve fund, and it is free for us to use when we have an unexpected expense or an emergency, compared to our city budget, which is not free for us to use because it is tied up in being used for all of the things that the city does all year, all month, every month, all year, day in and day out. Um, and whether that further elucidates the idea that you know the difference between the operating budget and a one time expense or a recurring expense and an emergency expense and, um, you know, that's the difference. Fundamentally, it is a reserve fund that the city has built up over time to address emergencies and one time needs. And, you know, to the point that was made, right? Yes, 30 million is a lot of money, but it would cost a lot more than that to build a new school. The new K-8 complex is in the 100 to 200 million, the new high school, 300 to 500 million, which is something the city is looking at. And, you know, just to round it out, there is a plan here. This is the plan to have a healthy middle school and K-8 complex at the Andrews and McGlynn, for a long time, and Brenda and Peter and the team and Bob have worked, and everyone else have worked really hard on that. We are applying for state funding for both a new high school and for similar projects at the Brooks, Roberts, and Missittuck Elementary Schools to keep those buildings healthy and teaching students for decades to come. And again, that's just the schools. Hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm gonna go to assistant superintendent. One second. Oh, yeah, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Superintendent. We have a motion from Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming to approve with a second by Vice President Collins. Do we have any further comment by members of the public? There is a hand on Zoom, but that person's already spoken. So if anyone who hasn't spoken yet would like to speak, I'll take you first. Seeing none, we'll go back to Mr. Castagnetti. Andy, you're gonna have one more minute.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One absent. The motion passes and the loaner is approved for third reading. 25 065 submitted by memory and I'll go current Community Preservation Committee appropriation request regarding affordable housing trust additional fiscal 25 funds, dear President Bears and members of the council on behalf of the CPC I request respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the CPC. requesting the appropriation of $50,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide additional funding to expand their fiscal 25 development awards budget. Project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPA manager Teresa DuPont and representatives from the Medford Affordable Housing Trust are in attendance. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted. Brianna Lago-Kern, Mayor. And I will go to Teresa DuPont.
[Zac Bears]: Not seeing Lisa, so if you wanna go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the Council? Is there a motion? Motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor, everyone, Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, either in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. 25.066 submitted by Mayor Brianne Legault-Kern. Appropriation of free cash. Dear president, mayors and city councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following free cash appropriations in the total amount of $229,766.01 on the following items. 198,000 for security upgrades at MPS buildings, which will be used to increase the total down payment made on a $1,843,038 $38.74 project, which will be paid over five years. I believe that also gets us some additional matching and grant funding or assist us on that in some way. And $31,766.01 for the following claim settlements, Bay State Insurance Company, Geico Safety Insurance, Geico Arbella Insurance, these are on behalf of Etrado, Dino Popolo, John Petroni, Salem Woldemariam, and Lauren Woldemariam, and Anthony Milano. Balance of free cash as of the writing of this letter is $27,606,069.12. Attorney Tom Lane from KP Law will be available to answer any questions on the claim. I see Tom is here with us on Zoom. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters. Respectfully submitted, Brianne Olingo, current mayor. Do we have any questions on The security system, we still have the assistant superintendent with us. Or do we have any questions on the claim settlements? We do have legal counsel, Tom Lane with us. Seeing none, I have a question for Dr. Cushing. Just if you could give us a little bit more info on the security upgrades project and how this free cash funding helps out with the down payment and all that.
[Zac Bears]: I think you stated it well. And no, and I really appreciate the detail. I know 198,000 seems like why are we doing it. But I know there's a lot more behind a lot of the work that goes on in the city, especially when it comes here and doesn't have all the context so want to thank you. Again, for this project, for the HVAC projects getting off the ground, and I can personally commit to you, the day after the new MHS debt exclusion passes, we'll start calling them the old schools. And then maybe they'll get the attention and understanding that they deserve. Or at least I'll call them that. I hope people will follow me on it. But thank you, Peter. It's really, you know, always great to have you with us.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing. All right. Any questions for Tom Lane from KP Law? I just had one, Tom, if you could just quickly go through, it looks like basically you were able to negotiate payments from the city that are less than what the insurance companies paid out to their clients. If you want to talk about that a little bit more, and I'll unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Thank you. And, you know, if you can't speak to this I understand and we can. I'll set a question myself to the administration. I'm just wondering why we're paying these out of free cash and not out of the operating budget line for for settlements.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we're gonna have a law department budget hearing in a week or two, so I'll bring it up then. But thank you for the answer, that's helpful to understand. Any further discussion by members of the council? Any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? You can approach the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Seeing no further discussion, members of the Council, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative one absent the motion passes. Thank you, Councilor and Dr. Fisher.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Two, five, zero, six, seven, Engineer Wartella. Can you tell us about the flood ordinance update? I can read more if you want, or I can just let you talk about it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to add that we have a letter for you from you in our packet. And this was reviewed by Attorney Jeffrey Blake from KP Law, and you are available to speak to our questions. So I will go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So just to echo, we're still doing science on this one? Yes. Okay, just checking. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: And there's a motion to approve the first reading the ordinance amendments, and this is just ordinance amendments right. Okay, by councils are seconded by Councilor Callahan. I have a question or two. Almost done. The. Is this. I'm not 100% sure how this works. Is this about flooding, like from the river, or from a storm event or does it address like flooding from our antiquated infrastructure under our roads?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And basic, I guess, and you may not be hydrologist or exactly whatever expertise is needed to answer this question, but when you looked at it, is the situation getting worse? Is more of the city floodable? Is there a climate impact related to this?
[Zac Bears]: So it's more that the existing zones are better following topographical contours. Correct. All right. Seeing no further questions from members of the Council, are there any questions from members of the public or comments from members of the public, either in person or on zoom, you can come to the podium, or raise your hand on zoom. Seeing none, on the motion for approval for first reading, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Five-three is not eligible to the next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion, Vice President Collins to take paper 25045 from the table and approve. This is the replacement of the sign at the car wash. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any discussion on that motion? Seeing none on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure, no worries. Yep. Well, we haven't gotten there yet so I'll uncall the roll Councilor Callahan if you have discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there is a sign that is a pre-existing sign that way too much legal work has gone into, in my opinion. I shouldn't editorialize. There's a sign at a new car wash. The car wash on Fulbright Street, which was once Minuteman Car Wash, was there for a very long time. it has a sign that is somewhat iconic on the highway. Minuteman car wash closed and they've been purchased by a new company that wants to build a new car wash there but they want to keep the sign they just want to change the name of the sign to their company instead of the old company. And there has been a dispute over how long the sign was inactive. And does it count as a pre-existing use? And apparently, I'm pretty sure this is the packet for it.
[Zac Bears]: And the only thing that's changing is that the plastic that they put in front of the light bulb will have a new name on it.
[Zac Bears]: Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I am not sure whether or not we are in receipt of a legal opinion. But it is ultimately up to the council as the final authority on appeals of signed permit refusals by the building department. I haven't read a legal opinion. That's all. You can any further discussion members of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes, and the appeal of the refusal of their signed permit was successful. Mr. Clerk, if you could communicate that to the proponent, to Attorney Desmond, and to the building commissioner if necessary. All right, public participation. This is the section where we can hear from members of the public on any topic that they'd like to discuss with the council. Each person who likes to speak will have three minutes. And just as a point of note, the council cannot act in this meeting on anything we hear because if it was not on the agenda. And since we've disposed of everything that was on the agenda, that is true, but we could act at a future meeting if a councilor were to propose a resolution, or if some other discussion were to happen. But we hear from public participation, and if there is anyone who wants to participate outside of Zoom, they can email the city clerk at ahertovsetmedford-ma.gov. So if anyone would like to come to the podium or raise their hand on Zoom for public participation. Welcome. I would have welcomed you earlier, but I was sitting there.
[Zac Bears]: If we just get your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to say thank you for feeling like you could come down here and that you could have your voice heard. That is one of the one of the roles of this body. We've done a number of resolutions and had conversations where we've had residents who said, federal level isn't listening to me the state level isn't listening to me. I'm a resident here. Will you listen to me? And, you know, That I think has had a lot of value for people who come down and a lot of value for me personally. I'm gonna say a couple quick things. One is, in a couple weeks, we are passing an ordinance to enshrine in city law protections around gender-affirming care, reproductive health care. We had an ordinance in January championed by, I mean, I almost don't do, everyone else here is doing really hard work, and I just wanna thank my fellow councilors. an ordinance enshrining what was a administrative policy into city ordinance law about non-cooperation of our police department with federal immigration authorities around civil immigration detainers. We had a resolution at our last regular meeting in deep anger and opposition to the abduction of Ramesa Ozturk. And you, you are here, you are certainly not the first person who has come to this podium or raised their hand online and spoken since November about these issues. Many, many more people have sent emails or made phone calls or just posted online and I know there's a lot of people who are, I'm really scared right now and I'm one of them, sometimes more than I even think and You know, and I say all that to say that we're trying to do as much as we possibly can within the authority that we have to make Medford as safe as we can make it. And that there, as you said, what is the state going to do, what is the federal government going to do? Those are really hard things that we think about too. It's, you know, what happens when that bridge is crossed, right? And we say our city law says this one thing and they come in and they say, well, we don't care about what that is. And the danger that I fear in so many ways that there's a lot of road ahead of us here. So I just wanted to just say those things and lift up the work of my colleagues and also say that I personally have called on the mayor to take more action in news media and around not just making statements, making a statement around the abduction, but what are the way that we're gonna mobilize our community resources. So I just wanted to say all of that, and I have, it's lighting up the board, everyone wants to say something as well. So I will go to, I'm not sure who went first, so I'll go to Councilor Tseng first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Lemang. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public participation? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I hope it's horrible. No, just, I really wasn't gonna say anything, but did a budget chart. Come on, a budget chart you don't want me to talk about? That's like my thing. And if this is beyond like the software's capacity, maybe that you're using, I think it might be useful to do it. You know how like sometimes you see that pie chart and there's a little slice of the pie that's separated from the rest of the chart. I think it might be useful to lump insurance, pensions, bonds, and interest in like a little slice and be like this slice is fixed costs that are defined by the retirement board and the GIC and the bond. Well, bonds and interest I think is a little more nebulous because we do decide how much to borrow, it's just we don't control the repayment schedule. But I just think a little chart being like here's all the stuff that's we're not actually spending on the departments other than health insurance and pensions and the city's retirement pension and I just love that little graphic where you have a slice of the pie. And then I think it might be really visually, because I looked at this and I was like, why so much gray? That's hard to see. Then I was like, people aren't going to see that 21% of the budget is, 22% of the budget is this. So just a thought. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The other thing I might suggest is actually combine DPW, but then separate out the trash contract line item and gray that out. Because the reason DPW highway is so high is that's almost all the trash contract. Yeah, it's like, I think, 7 million of the 9 million for DPW highways the trash contract and that's also one of the key fixed cost drivers along with, especially in this year's budget, so that might be worth putting in the gray as well waste management trash contract, and then if you subtract that out and then combine all of DPW together, I think that would just be a little more reflective of essentially that it's schools, police, fire, DPW, and everything else. And DPW together, you mean including cemetery and... Yeah, but also that, and obviously leave out water, sewer, because it's enterprise, but half of the total DPW budget is the trash contract.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Council President, I don't know if you've seen the New York Times study of our article it's kind of a graphic of the neighborhoods of New York City, and they like they all everyone disagrees. So they kind of did a heat map. I mean obviously that's way beyond the level of resources that we have. And I think too, right, like you could make an argument, there's a lot of folks, and actually it goes back, it's funny, it's really old, or right now, people who call the east side of the city East Medford, like, and there's an in-between group that is more like calling it Wellington or Glenwood. So I don't know, I've always been a fan of kind of offering a north, south, east, west square model, and then kind of putting in like in parentheses like East Medford, Wellington Glenwood, West Medford, maybe you could put Brooks Estate or something, South Medford, Hillside, it could be in parentheses, I don't know. But I agree that Brooks Estate as a standalone is a little confusing. I think this is fine. If I was to make a suggestion, I would change it to like Wellington slash Glenwood slash East Medford or something like that. But that's I'm agnostic on that I really think we don't have a clear definition of where some neighborhoods and other neighborhoods start, I think, okay so another suggestion maybe would just be to have.
[Zac Bears]: I've found that a lot of people don't have, actually can't place their location on a map. Yeah. Visually, without being able to search their address. So. Yeah. Yes. It's a toughie. I just wouldn't do Brooks Estate because I think that got me very confused to just be like the caretaker of the Brooks Estate.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. he's met for. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Or even maybe, yeah, I think it's fine. It's probably more representative to get more accurate data, especially at the low end and the high end.
[Zac Bears]: I was present bears, I would just also know that the tax brackets are based on adjusted gross income, and then minus the standard deduction. So, if you want to go at it that way. The standard deduction is what I only know is my taxes is 14 six so 11 plus 14 six is about 25.
[Zac Bears]: They're probably thinking their salary, not their adjusted salary, minus the deduction, which is what the brackets are based off of.
[Zac Bears]: That's a good point.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to thank you for the introductory preliminary budget meeting will be April 29, so two weeks from today. And then likely the two longer budget meetings will be the week of May, May 20th and 21st. We'll have one on the 6th, but I don't think we'll have one of the week of the 13th. So Justin, if that affects your calendar at all, like I would guess that the 30th of April and the 6th of May will likely be some of the smaller departments and then the larger departments would be in later in May.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, if you want to leave it open to get as many comments as possible, I mean, it depends on the level of analysis this committee is planning to do. Do you want to have a meeting to review the results prior to, you know, if you set the deadline as we want to review this, you want to review, all right, May 7th is the next meeting of this committee. So if you wanted to review it at that meeting, then that would be your purview, yeah. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Might check one, two, check one, two. Check, check two. Check microphone one, two, microphone one, two, one, two. Medford City Council special meeting April 15 2025 is called order, please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears present seven present and absent, please rise to salute the flag. Communications from the mayor to 4468 submitted by Mayor Brianna lingo current draft city charter as amended by city council on April 8 2025. We have before us tonight, the draft city charter proposal as amended by the council on April 8 2025 and referred to this special meeting as follow the submission of the mayor by the mayor of an amended draft on March 31 2025 that followed the approval by the council on March 11 by a six zero vote, one absent of a draft charter referred from committee of the whole after governance committee review. If approved by the council, this draft charter as amended by the council will be resubmitted to the mayor for consideration for submission to the legislature. Subsequently, if the mayor submits a draft city charter to the legislature and the legislature approved said draft prior to the printing ballots for the November 4th, 2025 municipal election, the voters of the city will approve or deny the draft city charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. It's a motion. The first one was 3-1-C. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: More than one C reads no person shall be elected to the office of mayor for more than four consecutive terms. Yes, and I wanted to yes and the motion was to remove consecutive from three one C. Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And that's one motion, not three motions.
[Zac Bears]: That's the question I'm asking you. Anyone else can make a motion to sever if they'd like.
[Zac Bears]: One motion then. One motion. Okay. Is there a second? All right. We're going to do all the motions and all the discussion. I'm gonna take the motions in order. Is there anything I have, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Um, I just realized, my apologies, that Councilor let me just made a motion to amend he not did not make a motion to approve as amended Is that correct. You just wanted to amend the paper under consideration. Yes. Okay, I shouldn't have had you start talking on your motion. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: What we did last time was someone had moved to amend and approve, and we considered a number of amendments to that motion. And that's why we took them in order. These are separate motions to amend the main paper so we should take them consecutively. So we should talk about going to go back to Councilor Lemings. which has a second from Councilor Callahan to remove consecutive from 3.1c to add more than eight terms under 2.1 and 4.1. So essentially to set eight term limits for the council and the school committee. Is there a discussion on that motion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I completely heard Leming as Lazzaro. Sorry. Okay. Is there a discussion on the Leming motion seconded by Councilor Callahan regarding term limits. Councilor Scarpelli. Nope. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the motion of Councilor let me a second by Councilor Callahan. We do have Vice President Collins as co host. So, she should be able to vote. Seeing that, yep. All right, on the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Callahan, Callahan, interesting. Callahan, regarding term limits. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng President Bears, no to the affirmative five in the negative the motion fails. All right, Councilor Lazzaro, now is the time. Thank you for making your speech already. You don't have to say it again, but just to reiterate, your motion was to revert to the mayor on the school committee, but not as the chair. All right. Is there a second on that motion? Sure, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion by members of the council on Councilor Lazzaro's motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We'll do both, but we're gonna do that after we finish this motion to amend for the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Your motion is a motion to amend the main paper to amend the main paper to restore the merit of the school committee, but not in the role as chair so voting member but not chair that has a second from Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any more discussion on that specific motion? for members of the council and I did see the mayor's hand. And so once we go through members of the council, I will recognize the mayor since she is the presenter of the paper. Mayor, I saw your hand earlier. If you want to re-raise it to speak on specifically this question about restoring the mayor to the school committee. and you should also be able to start video if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor. I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Collins in just a second, but, okay, well, then I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng, but I just wanna note that we did submit a draft March 11th, three weeks before the end of March, six weeks before now. And I also wanna note, I don't think anyone here has said that, has commented once about the political leanings of the members of the Charter Study Committee. And I think there's a difference between quote unquote politically diverse representation decided by a single person making that determination and representativeness on a committee. I think what the council has said and that really I think is troubling to me. You started with saying you didn't think you had the votes. I think you did. And I think I'm the swing vote. I don't think anyone here has said, oh, we wanted, we're mad because of the political opinions of people on the study committee. That is not been said here. I think the question was, what was the council's and school committee's involvements in the creation of the study committee? And does the study committee reflect the representation of the voters of the city? And the answer is the council and the school committee were not involved at all in forming the study committee. And the study committee was appointed by one person who apparently just said that their main consideration was political diversity based on their opinion of political diversity, not the representation of the city. So I'm not gonna comment further than that, but no one here has said, oh, the charter study committee is a problem because of people, the political opinions of the people on it. And I include the person who made a death threat against me. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Was that a proposal to further amend the motion to move the first charter review to five years instead of 10 years? You mentioned that we could do the first charter review earlier. Right now it listed as 10 years. The mayor suggested doing it in five years. I don't know if it would help. I'm just asking.
[Zac Bears]: Great, it doesn't need a second it just needs the main proponent to agree to it. Great. All right, so the motion is now to restore the merit of the school committee but not as the chair and to have the first charter review in five years instead of 10 years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And to Councilor Tseng's point, you know, I know a lot of people have been saying, well, what does the council think about this? Because there's been press releases and statements and social media posts really encourage people to watch what is certainly now approaching the 20 hours of public meetings, where I believe everyone, at least when it comes to our comments about what we think about the charter, has said, this is what I think, and I take that in good faith. the comments to the otherwise from anyone saying actually, they're lying, and they're liars, I don't think are really helpful or accurate. Can you had your hand raised. No. All right, I'll go to Councilor Collins and then I did see the mayor, who I will go back to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So I want to make sure that- Sorry, that may have been a clerical error by me as we have not had assistance on any of this in terms of putting together red line drafts. So yes, that should read three, three, three.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just an FYI for members of the public. We're going through Council discussion and Council motions on this paper. Once all Councilors have made discussion items or other motions that they want to make on this paper, and it has been amended, then we will open public participation on the paper before a final vote. And it also sounds like a lot of B paper, so we'd be doing that for both of those papers. Is there any further discussion by members of the council or the mayor who is the petitioner who put this before the council on the question, the motion before us, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as the chair and to further amend that motion to have in section nine for the first charter review in five years. And then every 10 years thereafter, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to sever seconded by Councilor Lazzaro Mr. Clear, all those in favor, actually first time in a little bit we've had everyone. All those in favor, I opposed. All right, we'll vote separately on those two questions. Madam Mayor, feel free if you want to raise your hand, I did see you earlier. If you wanted to say anything more on this since you were the one who submitted this to us. Not seeing the hand will vote. Oh, she just did. All right, we'll go to the mayor. Floor is yours Madam Mayor, I just, I didn't want to.
[Zac Bears]: The public will speak on the papers once we finish council discussion and motions to amend, but we will have public participation once we've gone through all of the council discussions and motions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. All right, any further discussion by members of the council on the motion to amend as severed? Seeing none, the first vote would be on the motion to amend for the first charter review in five years and then every 10 years thereafter. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And I might ask Councilor Collins to do a copy of it before I send this final, final thing back. So I make sure that we captured everything we voted on. That leaves the first half of this motion, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as chair. Both of these are councilors are seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli has requested a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I thought it'd be this way and I was wrong. Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. motion passes. So clearly groupthink and our ulterior motives are absolutely true. All right. Councilor Lazzaro, you had mentioned a B paper.
[Zac Bears]: We can wait.
[Zac Bears]: We'll wait for everyone to be paying attention before we keep moving forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Before I go to, sorry, before I go to the motion to be paper, actually, I do have the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Just want to recognize you mayor. I saw your hand up.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. Okay, continue Councilors are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion by members of the council on the B paper proposed by Councilors are seconded by Councilor Callahan to have this press release sent out through the city's press release, posting on the city website and however, any other press releases are sent out. Any discussion on specific language, or, or any other elements of it, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: No, we'll vote on the B paper first. There are highlighted sections in here. Councilor Lazzaro, it looks like those are the ones that would describe what happens in the vote. Technically, it's an A. We have to vote on the main paper last.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to increase that highlight to- I can highlight that one.
[Zac Bears]: Could we put an amendment forward that the clerk and I will adjust any sections that councilors deem necessary to reflect the final decision of the council on the main paper? Is that a fair amendment?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so we'll work on that. Make sure that the final docket reflects what we vote on.
[Zac Bears]: Paragraph ending over several meetings so the fabric beginning over several meetings some sort of sentence that says, you know, if you want to characterize it or Councilors are if you have a suggestion, whichever one of you wants to make a proposal for a sentence that indicates that the council had significant disagreements about the process and the outcomes.
[Zac Bears]: Something like while many Councilors raised serious questions and voice strong opinions about issues of policy and process, and we could get more specific if we wanted to say issues of representation, balance of power and other elements of the other policies and elements of the process in the experience of compromise the council voted to a drop this draft unanimously.
[Zac Bears]: I'll say representation. Balance of power.
[Zac Bears]: Issues of representation, balance of power, other policies, and the process. And it's OK. So it reads, while many councilors raise serious questions and voice strong opinions about issues of representation, balance of power, other policies, and the process in the spirit of compromise, the council adopted this draft unanimously. And obviously, that assumes we adopted it unanimously. So if not, I would change that to adopted this draft by a vote of whatever. OK. Any further discussion on this B paper? All right, is there any discussion by members of the public on the B paper? Again, the B paper is the council's press release regarding the vote that we will take on the A paper after we dispose of the B paper. Please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom if you have a public comment on the press release draft B paper. I see Pete Morrison on Zoom. name and address for the record, you have three minutes. And this is on the B paper of the council press release.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely yes we will.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who wants to talk about the B paper the press release on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro seconded by Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Tseng that we have this press release to be posted on the city website and released through the city's press release outlets. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. All right, we have the A paper, which has one amendment, which is to restore the mayor to the school committee, but not as the chair and to further amend section nine dash four so that the first charter review occurs within five years and every 10 years thereafter. And I can read through the other changes if we want to do that just to make sure. These will be changes from the draft submitted by the mayor so this would include the votes taken on April 8. All right, the first changes in section two dash one see, which just says a word Councilor shall be a voter in the word from which election is sought, removing the words for at least one year prior to the date of inauguration. The second change. is in section to dash nine, where the first sentence reads the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk, the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer department head or member of the multiple member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance. Under section three, it reads the same, the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section two dash nine all city officers and department heads and the members of multiple member bodies for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance words or ordinance or what is added. In section three six be the words and the city website were added after tell me immediately posted on the city bulletin boards. That's for if the mayor calls a special meeting of the council. All right, section 4-1, we would restore the language that says the school committee shall consist of seven members, two members elected at large by the voters of the city and one each elected from the following districts combined of the combined wards within the city, wards one and seven. words two and three words four and five and word six and eight and then it would restore the language the mayor shall serve as the seventh member of the school committee. It's only 40 pages I promise I will flip quickly. There was some language removed because it was redundant. This is in section 8.2 subsection B. that just removed basically there's a sentence that says that the city solicitor shall advise the city council or school committee in writing as to whether the measure as proposed may lawfully be proposed by the initiative process and whether in its present form it may be lawfully adopted by the city council or school committee. This strikes and whether in its present form it may be lawfully adopted by the city council or school committee because that's redundant to the first sentence. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. PB – Harmon Zuckerman. And then in section 9-4, section A, the charter shall be subject to review by a charter review committee as defined below within five years of the charter's approval by the voters and every 10 years thereafter. So that changes it to five within five years instead of within 10 years. And then every 10 years after that. And then B, this review shall be made by a special committee composed of three appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the council and three appointees of the school committee. That reverts to the council's vote from March 11, and reverses the change the mayor made on April 1 which would have had four of the mayor three of the Council to the school committee. And I think that's it. Is there anything that folks think I miss. All right, any discussion by members of the council on the draft as amended? We have a motion. Is there a motion on that draft? We don't have actually a motion yet. There's a motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli on the draft as amended. All right, seeing no further discussion by members of the council, we'll go to discussion by members of the public. Please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Actually, sorry, I see the mayor. So we'll go to the mayor and then we will go to public participation. Madam Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Mayor could you. We didn't hear what you said could you just repeat your comment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you were cutting.
[Zac Bears]: We had voted, this was in the March 11th draft, and it was in the vote we took last week that section three, three would read the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section 2.9, all city officers and department heads and members of multiple member bodies for whom whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance. So if at the charter or and we added the words or ordinance so if the charter or a city ordinance provided another method of selection. Then that would be who makes the selection. As I was reviewing, I did see a comment that did not get incorporated from the Collins Center in section 2.9, which was, we recommend replacing this text with the following text. So it would read, the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer, department head, or member of the multiple member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by the charter. Um, so I had added or ordinance because I felt it aligned with the three, three vote that we had taken to add the words or ordinance. Um, as I read it, at least the change to three, three would say that if an ordinance said that someone else appointed either a city officer department head or member of a multiple member body, then the ordinance would define who appointed them, not the mayor. I don't know if that maybe an error, I shouldn't have changed to nine.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, I think that the section three three change would say that if an ordinance said that someone else makes that appointment, whether that's the council or that that would be how that would work. But now that I'm reading two nine, I think it makes sense what you're saying that if the, for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by a charter or ordinance, the mayor would have to refer to the city council. So that should probably just say by charter in two nine. I thought they were making self-referential references.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was reading it was under 3-3. that it says the mayor shall appoint subject to the review of such appointments by the city council under section two dash nine all city officers and department heads and the members of multiple member bodies for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by the charter or ordinance so if the charter or an ordinance were to say who should be appointing a city officer or department head or a multi-member body, then that would be what defines who makes the appointment. But I'm wondering if separately in section 2.9 where it says, the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the clerk the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer, department head, or member of a multi-member body for whom no other method of appointment or selection is provided by charter or ordinance would mean if no ordinance existed, she would have to submit it to us. So what we don't want is that if there's nothing in the charter or the ordinance, then it doesn't start automatically everyone, but what we do want is that if it is in the charter ordinance it has to be followed. So I mean leaving or ordinance and three three, removing it from tonight. Is that any.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to confirm my understanding with all of us here. What we're voting on is that if the charter or the ordinance says that there's an appointment, that's what follows. But that if there's nothing in the charter or ordinance, then we do not have to appoint.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so that's what we're. Okay, so that's what we're doing, Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. We'll work out this, make sure we get the thing right. I think we actually have exactly what it needs to say right now, but we'll confirm that. So the motion as further amended is that the council leadership will work on, we'll just confirm the language as discussed and the intent, confirm the intent of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we will have a press release for you and Steve for tomorrow to go out from us. So look forward to it.
[Zac Bears]: We'd like it to go out as a press just to the same places where the last press release about this issue went out, if you don't mind. All right. We have a motion, as amended, just to confirm that in section 29 and 33. And we'll get that to the mayor motion by Councils are seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Now we'll go to public comment and you can please No, Lazzaro Scarpelli. And so we will go to public comment. If you'd like to comment at the podium, please come to the podium or on Zoom. And Phyllis, you have had your hand raised, so we will go to you first. Name and address for the record, please. And Phyllis, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Phyllis. And thanks for waiting. And, um, members of the study committee who want to say anything, I just want to say, and I, you know, I appreciate you directing your comments generally to the chair. Um, but I did say some things about, um, about politics and my point being that the mayor tonight said that, and the process for appointing the study committee was that people applied and then the mayor and her office made a decision on who would serve on the committee, that the mayor said that her goal was to have a politically diverse representation. So essentially to appoint people based on their political beliefs. and that the council didn't like the Charter Study Committee because we didn't like the political beliefs of the Charter Study Committee or some of the members. And my point that I was trying to make was that no one on this floor in a public meeting certainly that I ever heard said the Charter Study Committee's members and their politics is why we disagree with the Charter Study Committee. So I appreciate your comment. And I appreciate that, you know, it can be frustrating to hear that. I was frustrated to hear it when the mayor said it. And that's why I said, we, no one here in this forum has said, I don't like the study committee because I don't like the politics of some members of the study committee. Or I don't like the study committee because I don't like this person on the study committee. And I took that even to the point of saying, someone who said some very horrible things about me, I have never once said, I'm disagreeing or I'm voting this way because that person served on that committee. I'm going to go to Jean Zotter, another member of the study committee. Name and address for the record, Jean. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Two more since you're on the study committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. Any further comments by members of the public either in person or on Zoom? PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. Just a minute. All right, you should be able to start your video. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellen. Do you have anything else you want to add before I answer your question? All right. So the answer is that, and I hope My colleagues will in the legislature will take this with all due respect the legislature is a great black box. And there actually is no deadline. And there actually is no threshold for how the vote needs to be. All we know is what the legislature tends to do, and what they're kind of. informal practice is the legislature is starting their budget season, essentially next week so the idea is if you get it in before budget season you'll have a better chance of getting it passed before budget season ends. The budget should be passed by June 30 but usually goes into July, and then they take a summer break. So it's all based on kind of the informal workings of the legislature. Additionally, technically by the law, a four to three vote of the legislative body and the approval of the mayor is legally sufficient for the legislature to advance a home rule petition. Technically the legislature could pass a law applying to the city, I believe even without the council's assent, they are under the state constitution, essentially all powerful. But the best practice is that you want a super majority between a super majority and near unanimity. So that would be here a five to two, a six to one or a seven to zero vote. So, you know, and the higher that is the better chance you get. But again, that's not a rule or anything that is established by law. That is kind of an informal practice of the legislature. So the goal is always to get it in as early as you can and with as many votes as you can, but Beyond that, there's nothing in the law or the rules of the legislature that defines either of those. They could, if we voted at four, three, they could take it up in their next session and pass it the next day and we could be done with it. But it really just is about the leadership setting the calendar in both chambers and what they're comfortable with. I'd refer you to a lot of the public discussion about transparency in the legislature to talk more about that. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom since we don't have anyone in the chamber. Eileen, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Munir Jimenez. name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Mr. Andrea Tola. Come on down, we're gonna get you in front of the microphone. You have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Good night, thank you very much. All right, we have one more comment on Zoom and if there's no one else in the chamber, I'm not seeing anybody. Go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom, name and address for the record, you have three minutes. Andy, are you there? Andy, I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: There you go. We can hear you. You got three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Do you know? 1986 election was I think the, and then I went into effect for the 1987 municipal.
[Zac Bears]: We're coming on 30, 38. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to take credit for anything, so Milva, correct me right away. But you may have, I went to the library, got three, four years ago now, and I pulled the mercury on microfilm. And I think I printed those out and emailed them to Milva. Probably there were many others that were used, but don't let it be said that I didn't realize I was in the report or may have been. But yeah, no, it's, oh, Milva might be correcting me right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council or the public? All right, well, I will just say that I really echo, Councilor Tsengs sentiment, and most of what he actually said to not just a sentiment. I think the great failing of this process and in many ways municipal governance in Massachusetts is. that the state laws and the state constitution do not give cities and towns in Massachusetts the powers that cities and towns and most other parts of the country have. Even our home rule constitutional amendment from the 60s, which enables the home rule charter process, makes it hard for that process to be initiated. And the real question here is we had to jump through You know, we, this process went the way it went because we had to go outside of the process that the law and the Constitution offers us. we had to appoint a study committee that actually was just authorized by the mayor as a matter of policy, rather than the general laws or the state constitution, because we didn't collect enough signatures and the legislature denied our home rule petition, which we did approve. We approved a 4-3 home rule petition to have an elected charter committee here in Medford, but the legislature has the ability to say no. Well, even though the mayor and the council by majority vote agreed to that, The legislature didn't even have to consider it they never had to take a vote on it they never had to even say no to us they just never had to say yes. our options were limited. We're going through a special act charter process so still the legislature has to approve everything we want to do, even if the residents wanted rank choice voting or multi member districts or, you know, a model of mayoral involvement with the school committee that hasn't been seen before. We couldn't actually deliver to voters, what they may have wanted and what this city would like to have seen its form of government look like, because the state processes basically don't let us do that. Certainly, the ones that might let us do that are very hard for communities to move through. We see this when it comes to laws that the council may want to pass around housing, around traffic and transportation, around the safety of people on our streets. up and down on anything this council and the people of the city may want. How many times have you emailed a Councilor, a school committee member, or a mayor, and they've had to say, sorry, call your state rep, or sorry, call your state senator. And then you call them and they say, sorry, I need to get 160 other people to agree with me. And it truly does become an act of Congress to put a crosswalk in. It's an act of the legislature, an act of the general court, right? The other thing it does is it pits us against each other, right? We could have had an elected body that made a recommendation that went right to the voters, and none of us would have had to be involved, and the mayor wouldn't have had to be involved, and the legislator wouldn't have had to be involved, and the people themselves could have directly said, this is the kind of government we wanna see, and then the people themselves could have voted for it. But instead, our egos, and our personalities, and our opinions, and our thoughts, and our research, and our evidence, and all of our data was forced to get in the middle of that. Maybe we're overcoming it. We've done that a lot this term. But the last two terms we didn't. In Somerville, they haven't. They've been having this fight for six years now, whether the council wouldn't approve it or the mayor wouldn't approve it. So something we've talked about here throughout this process is that this is for the future. This is for the people. This isn't about the people who are in these offices right now. And it's self serving to say this but we're lucky that the people who are in these offices right now agreed to disagree to move something forward, because most of the time, it doesn't happen. And the system and the structure that governs this process is designed for the exact opposite. So I know there's probably some people who are never going to vote for me again because of the things I proposed here and, you know, some people are going to say that this was the power grab and the other thing wasn't the power grab. For better or worse, the seven of us and the mayor, it looks like, we'll see, I don't know how many of you are going to vote, got together and said, all right, we'll put our opinions and our egos and our differences aside because the system is designed for us to fail and we don't want to fail. And I think that that is a good story. And I'm happy that I was a part of writing it, even for all the parts that I don't like and all the chapters and all the challenges and conflicts in that story that were not particularly fun. So with that, maybe we'll get done before nine o'clock. Any further discussion? All right, on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve as amended to have Council leadership work with the mayor on the technical language surrounding sections 29 and 33 to meet the discussed intent of the Council, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six the affirmative one in the negative, the motion passes. And we have advanced the draft charter as amended. There's a motion by count and we're also the B papers so that'll go as well on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by seconded by Council is our all those in favor. All right, I suppose motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think. One of the things we're talking about and something that's been discussed for a long time is the underutilization of the lots surrounding the immediate platform. And yes, there has been these accessibility platforms have been added kind of towards the back end of the lot, but they are not a full renovation or the permanent changes that we'd like to see. at this location. Another point of note is that, you know, and this is the really big infrastructure question that who knows if and when it will be ever be answered, is that the High Street and Canal Street crossings are two pretty much the only at-grade crossings left, certainly on this part of the lower line all the way up into Woburn. So you know, fixing that problem is a much longer question. Um, in any case, my point being that the zoning of the mix to be for the lots that are currently the parking lot, the old citizens bank, that's now closed the Walgreens and the post office would allow for, I think, and I think any serious project proposal for this area would, um, look at integrating the into some sort of structure or development. So that is, I think, a long term vision that has been discussed by many people for a long time for that area. And I think hopefully In doing that, we can address some of the issues that have been presented by this kind of temporary, or it's not necessarily temporary, it's permanent, but it's not a complete fix to the accessibility issues for the West Medford commuter rail stop.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I think just looking at this, the Dunkin' Donuts parcel and adjacent parcels, as well as that very large lot that is mostly used for parking that runs on both Harvard and Bauer. I think, yes, I understand the argument around the tracks being a place for the mixed-use 2B, but I think we could consider those as well, especially that Duncan lot, which I think could be significantly transformed to be more of an anchor for the square rather than what it is right now, which is mostly an empty parking lot. In terms of extending down High Street towards the Arlington border, personally, I think Looking at, I mean, certainly I don't mind considering it in the context of this proposal or as an addendum to this proposal, but I also think that. Really, when we say there's commercial all the way down to. The rotary we're talking about 2 commercial buildings and a gas station. On a couple across 4 or 5 blocks, so it might be more of a candidate for. The mixed use nodes that we're talking about. as it could be part of that process. Um, I just think that the context is a little different.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think we need to think about that. If folks remember the fire on the kind of lower end of Canal there because it's a dead end because of access issues. I know that it's just a strange little area in terms of access and developable capacity. And I think we need to think. Another step there, and at least review some of the communications that we had with the building department and the fire department around some of their concerns about. that structure and even just the impact of rebuilding that to its status before the fire and safety and accessibility issues. I just think it's a kind of a unique question. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but I think we should have that conversation because I know some concerns were raised because of that incident.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: City Council seventh regular meeting April 8 2025 is called to order Mr. please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears present seven present non absent, the meeting is called order please rise to salute the flag. Announcements accolades remembrances reports and records records the records of the meeting of March 25 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan Councilor Callahan how did you find those records. I found them in order and I move to approve on the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve the record seconded by seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees. Is there a motion to join and approve? On the motion of Vice President Collins to join and approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. And I will go to Council Vice President Collins. on 24033 planning and permitting committee report. Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. 22379 and 22453, Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, April 1st. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. 24069, 24354 and 25041 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, April 2nd, 2025. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. On the motion to join and approve the committee reports, any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, there is a hand raised on Zoom. Sharon's iPhone, if you could just rename yourself to add your last name and then I'll unmute you and you'll have three minutes to discuss this paper. All right, the hand went down on the motion was for please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Great, can we take 52 first? Yes. Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 2052, 2050, and 2051, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're, we're in the middle of a roll call. We could make a motion. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative no negative motion passes. 25052 submitted by the Elections Commission 2025 Medford election calendar nomination papers available Tuesday, June 10 last day an hour to pick up nomination papers Friday, July 25. Last day an hour to submit nomination papers July 29 host list of candidates, August 13 last day to object to nominations or withdraw Thursday August 14 ballot position drawing for preliminary municipal election if necessary Friday August 15 last day to register for vote to vote for September municipal preliminary Friday September 5. Last day and hour to apply to vote early for September preliminary election, September 9th, Tuesday, September 9th. In-person early voting from Saturday, September 6th through Friday, September 12th. The September municipal preliminary, Tuesday, September 16th. Last day and hour to file for a recount for the preliminary, Monday, September 22nd. Last day to register to vote for November municipal election, Friday, October 24th. in-person early voting for November Municipal Election, Saturday, October 25th through Friday, October 31st. Last day to apply to vote early by mail, Tuesday, October 28th. November Municipal Election, Tuesday, November 4th, 2025. And last day and hour for a candidate to file a recount petition for the November election, Friday, November 14th. And with that, I'll recognize the Chair and members of the Elections Commission.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any questions by members of the council on the proposed election calendar? Is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: That's a saying President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative emotion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. 25-050 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, loan order 25,775,000 school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds supplemental. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the loan order below, which is in addition to the 5 million loan order that appeared before the council at its December 17th, 2024 meeting. Be it ordered that 25,775,000 $1,000 is appropriated for the purposes of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps including associated automated controlled structural and architectural work, electrical work, and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrews School and the acquisition and installation of solar panels and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn school, including the cost of planning, design, architectural and engineering services and all incidental other costs incidental and related there too. And I'll leave it at that and I will go to our climate planner Brenda Pike and the assistant superintendent Peter Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And this is our third time I think seeing this project. If you could, could you just discuss any thing that's changed since the first two presentations that we received and then I can go. I'm sure a lot of small things have changed. You can keep it to the bigger things. And then I'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. We have a motion to approve from Vice President Collins, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Tseng and we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we have a motion from Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading. Is there any discussion by members of the public either in person or on Zoom? If you're here in person, you can step up to the podium or you can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Dear President Bears and members of the Council on behalf of the CPC I respect the request and recommend your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee $11,000 from the CPA General Reserve to the Winthrop Street Garden Commission for pergola installation at the Winthrop Street Gardens and it will go to manager to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anything you want to add, Georgiana? No. Alright, cool. Um any Seeing none, do we have any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Also seeing none, is there a motion on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Could we, we do have clear channel here, could we take it quickly and then go? All right. I'm gonna go to paper 25036, hearings, petition to amend the special permit. Notice of a public hearing, City of Medford, City Clerk's Office, Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F. Alden Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall at 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, relative to an amendment requested by Clear Channel Outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 Mystic Ave, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. Petitioner is seeking an amendment to the previously granted special permit. The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment slash reduction in the permit fee. Copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk room one or three Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford city clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the many Medford City Council signed Adam I'll her to be a city clerk. So I'm going to open the public hearing. And I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then we can hear from the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: I think that we do have the petitioner present.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President, you should be able to turn on your video now if you so choose.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you. Could we have your name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Great, so we'd like to hear a bit more about the petition, what you're requesting, and then we will discuss it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. It also says that there's a request to reduce the fee. Do you have any comment on that?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Um, I can't say that we have been a lot of the city's fees have not been updated in a very long time. It's very likely that the building department may have updated them to reflect the times. But I'm going to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Stroud, just to clarify the motion, if the petitioner wanted to move forward tonight without changing the fee, would you be comfortable with that or do you think
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so there's a motion to table. to the next regular meeting, actually motion to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting and request an update on the application and the fee from the building department and also to request legal to give us an opinion on whether or not we can reduce the fee. When you have that, Mr. Clerk, let me know. All right, so there's a motion to continue the public hearing to the April 29 meeting by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comment by members of the council? Seeing none, there's a motion to continue to April 29th and request those answers from the building department and the legal department. Any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. President, Councilor Tseng. You should be good.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarapelli to suspend the rules to take paper 24468. Does that motion have a second? Is there another motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion? On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. 25053 offered by Councilor Tseng, gender affirming care and reproductive health care ordinance. I could read the full ordinance, but is there a motion to waive the reading in lieu of a summary by the petitioner? So moved. On the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Sagan. Is there a further discussion by members of the council? Council Vice President Tom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? either in person or on Zoom. I'm gonna go to Mike Denton on Zoom. Mike, you have three minutes. And I just wanna remind everyone, you can provide your name and address when you speak, or you can provide that information. You don't have to provide your name, but you can provide your address privately to the clerk if you'd like to do that. by email at ahertabaseatmedfordma.org. Mike, give me one second to get the timer going. All right, Mike, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mike. We'll go to the podium. Name and address. For the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the ordinance? Seeing none. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for first reading by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 77 affirmative. Yes. None of the negative motion passes for first reading. 25055 resolution to support the release of Ramesa Ozturk council is our own president bears whereas Ramesa Ozturk was an international student with a legal student visa at Tufts University in Medford and whereas Ramesa Ozturk student visa was canceled because she co-wrote an op-ed in 2024 and the Tufts University student newspaper that was critical of the Tufts administration's refusal to acknowledge and stand against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and whereas the Constitution protects everyone in the United States regardless of immigration status, and whereas the First Amendment of the Constitution protects the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government, and where it's clear that Ms. Öztürk's visa was canceled because of political speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. and where it is the obligation of our local, state, and federal government to uphold and protect the rights of our residents, permanent and temporary, all of whom are protected by the United States Constitution. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council condemns the abduction of Hermesa Ozturk by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as unlawful punishment for political speech, and acknowledges and condemns that Ramesa Osterk is a political prisoner, be it further resolved that the Medford City Council calls for the release of Ramesa Osterk immediately, so that she may resume her studies of child development at Tufts University and her peaceful residence in Somerville. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council requests an update from Tufts University on the specific policies to protect their students, faculty, and staff from similar abductions by ICE in the future, and to protect their community's right to exercise freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council requests that our partners in local government and our state and federal delegations speak out publicly against the unlawful arrest of a student in our community in violation of her due process rights and in violation of the United States Constitution. Council Dizaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Cohns. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. I have two hands on Zoom or one hand just went down and we have someone in the chambers. We'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Ken Garrow on Zoom. We alternate. Ken, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go back to the podium name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No one else on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We do have a hand on Zoom. I'm going to go to Katie on Zoom. Katie, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment by members of the public. All right. I'll just be brief as a co sponsor, but also as the chair I didn't want to say anything until everyone had had their say. One thing I think that's important to note is when what councilors are read on the previous or earlier on this item, Tufts made it very clear that I slide about when the visa was revoked. So it's another post-hoc attempt to justify this abhorrent act. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, yes, that some of these folks are gonna have to refile in different courts of jurisdiction, but they were very clear I believe it was 9 to 0, that there is no justification for this venue shopping and trying to move people from Boston to Louisiana before their lawyers have the ability to file a habeas petition. The government's blatantly violating basic due process rights. Never mind. That's before we get to the question of First Amendment rights. Just to say, oh, we're going to get you out of the country faster than your lawyer can file a habeas petition one of the most egregious violations of due process that I think we've seen since the internment of Japanese people in the 1940s during World War II. And again, to note that the Alien Enemies Act was what Franklin Roosevelt used to justify that. It's a 1798 law. I think our values have changed a little bit since 1798, maybe at least only for some of us. And just on the point of acting locally, I can't really think of a greater danger to our residents and masked agents of the state abducting people off the street and beyond a resolution I would like to see the city seriously consider not just this item like the know your rights information but. Joining up with Community members and potentially using city employees to warn residents when ice is present in the Community, I think it's essential that residents are informed that there are dangerous people here who might try to take them for no reason against their basic human rights, and I say that to say that. When we passed the welcoming city ordinance a couple months ago, there was a. you know, some statements and questions went around, well, it's not going to happen to US citizens, or it's not going to happen to naturalized citizens, or it's not going to happen to green card holders. Well, it's not just, there's not just, you know, I think it's this mythical idea that there's this group of violent immigrants who have no documentation, and that's who is going to be attacked, and no one else is. Well, it's visa holders who've done nothing wrong. It's green card holders. And we've heard stories from the border of Canadian citizens, of naturalized U.S. citizens, of natural born, native born U.S. citizens being detained by ICE because they refuse to turn over their phone so that ICE can search whether they've put out statements against the president. So it's everybody. It's moving up the scale every day. Um, and that's why we passed that ordinance. We said, we're not going to cooperate. And now I think it's up to us to convene, uh, and to push the mayor to take action, to actively warn residents that there are dangerous agents of this Trump regime who are coming to this community who, um, may well pose them grave danger. I think that's reasonable. That's what local government should do. It should try to keep residents safe, safe by making sure they know When dangerous people are around, especially because, as was noted, we don't have the ability to tell them not to come here. You know, when dangerous people, when danger happens, local government, you know, stands up and says, we're going to try to stop this danger. And the sad part of what's happening right now is we can't tell the federal government not to come here. All we can do is say they're here, please stay away. So that's something I would like to see happen personally. And I thank you for your indulgence in me making that statement. Is there any further discussion by members of the public or members of the council on this resolution? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes, we have offered support including the prior ordinance on the transgender rights and reproductive healthcare inclusion. But if someone would wanna make an amendment to add that to the resolution, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. We do have one hand raised again. Matthew Page-Lieberman. Matthew, I can go to you for one more minute since you've already spoken once.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the B paper by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilor let me Mr. please follow up.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, one of the none of the negative the motion passes on the a paper by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying, President Bears yes 70 affirmative none the negative the motion passes 25057 resolution to create and distribute know your rights information. We basically just had this discussion so I'm just going to say that the resolution is to be resolved that the city of Medford create know your rights informational pamphlets or flyers and distribute them. and promote this information via the city's online communication and social media platforms in our community centers, such as Medford City Hall, Medford Senior Center, Medford Public Schools, Medford Police Department Headquarters, and the Medford Public Library, and be it further resolved that this Know Your Rights information cover common questions and concerns and information on basic rights under the law, and be it further resolved that this be available in English, Arabic, Creole, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese. Councilor Collins and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve. And is this referring to anywhere or just going right to the Mayor? Great. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion on this resolution by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. We'll go to the podium name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can, if you want to use the rest of your time, I can answer questions at the end. Oh, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. In terms of what Councilors or members of the public have said for Councilors, you can certainly email Councilors if you have a specific citation for a specific piece of information. You know, for the information I cited, I believe I read a New York Times article I could look for and provide. And when I mentioned a task force or a warning about the presence of ICE, I was talking about all Medford residents, regardless of their documentation status, because as we've seen, the administration is politicizing documentation status at this point.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to get into a back and forth. There are civil violations, but there are also people who are here legally and are now having their legal status revoked for political reasons. So it's unclear. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I heard Fox said the markets are up. So I'm gonna go to Gene Zahner on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. I'm gonna go to Matthew Page Lieberman, name and address for the record, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion on this paper? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm confirming the negative motion passes. 24468 draft charter as returned to Council by Mayor, submitted by Mayor Burrito Lungo-Koehn. The draft City Charter proposal as amended by the Mayor and returned to the Council on March 31st, 2025 is attached. The fall this fall the approval by the city council at the March 11 2025 regular meeting by a vote of six to zero one absent of a draft charter referred from committee of the whole following the governance committee's review process. If approved by the council this draft city charter as amended by the council will be resubmitted to the mayor for consideration for submission to the legislature. Subsequently, if the mayor submits the draft city charter to the legislature and the legislature approved said draft prior to the printing and ballots for the November 4 2025 municipal election, the voters of the city of Medford will approve or deny the draft city charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. I'm not gonna read the whole charter, obviously, and I'm not even gonna read the 160 plus line by line changes. The documents are available on the city council portal, but I will open it up to discussion by members of the council on the draft charter returned to the council by the mayor. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So it would be, I think technically a motion to approve as amended. And those are the two amendments. And that's my council, Lazzaro, is there a second on the motion? Second by Councilor Tseng, reminding that that motion can be further amended. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Collins and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So those are motions to amend. The main motion by Council is our, which is seconded by Councilor Tseng. If Councilor Lazzaro can accept the amendments or there can be votes to include them. We do have more discussion. So if there are other proposed, let's see if there are other proposed amendments to the motion and then we can vote on them at the end. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I just, it is. It was 43% removed from the school committee, 35% stay on the school committee, and 15% don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I go to Councilor Sagan, Councilor Callahan, I will note Councilor Sagan and I did try to work with the mayor to start the council part of the process earlier and eventually through the initial negotiations, we were asked to wait for the study committee to issue its final report before we began to take up consideration of any of this. We would have started about three to six months earlier if we had not made that decision.
[Zac Bears]: All good, Councilor Tseng? Yes. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan is that a motion to amend the main motion to refer this to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And your other question is, who can give a definitive answer on what powers the. charter review committees established under the special act charter would have would they be home rule charter powers or just special act charter powers and it looks like we have anthony wilson from the collins center who's raised a hand who may have the answer to that question amazing i will unmute anthony anthony thanks for being here
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to speak for Councilor Callahan and Councilor Callahan if I get your question wrong please let me know. Anthony, I think the question Councilor Callahan is asking is, is the Charter Review Committee established under the Special Act Charter empowered to act as a home rule charter committee in the future, or would it only act as a special act charter committee, and therefore, if we wanted to do rank choice voting, would that have to be submitted to the legislature for their approval in a future amendment by the Charter Review Committee established under this charter, you know, the first one being five years and then 10 years after that. Councilor Callahan, did I get your, is that the question you're asking?
[Zac Bears]: OK, well, then that's just my question and I'm asking it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So the charter review committee created under this would be another special act charter review committee. And so it wouldn't be a home rule charter committee.
[Zac Bears]: And, and when you say, you know, basically what you're, we'd have to assume if we wanted to change to ranked choice voting that the legislature would approve such an amendment, that the mayor would set it up and that the legislature would approve it if the council were to put it forward.
[Zac Bears]: And, but you're also saying that if say in the future, they wanted to, their charter review wanted to happen under a home rule committee, that the signature collection process would still be a valid way to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. And that would be a home rule charter commission versus a special act charter commission.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further discussion by members of the council? We have three amendments containing five provisions that councillors have requested to amend the main motion. This is the two from Councilor Collins one is to amend the number of appointees to future charter review committees under section nine dash four, be to three Mayor three Council three school committee. Under 4-1, a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee. Now we have Councilor Tseng. Under 8-2, reverting the certification of petitions to the Board of Election Commissioners. And 8-2E, a 12% threshold for the citizen initiative. Is that the citizen initiative or the repeal referendum? Got it. And then Councilor Callahan to amend to refer to committee of the whole. Councilor Lazzaro, you could accept those, you could accept some of them, or we could vote on each of the five to include them as an amendment to the main motion. The main motion is by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve the draft as amended. with those amendments being under section 3-3A, adding back the word, the words or ordinance and under 2-1C, changing that to a word Councilor shall be a voter in which the office is sought or essentially just not having a additional residency requirement for that type of office where it doesn't exist for any other office.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So we'll start with the first one which is the amending the number of appointees to future Charter Review Committees to three Mayor, three Council, and three School Committee under section 9-4B. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the starting point of this is the mayor's amended draft. No motion has been made to change back to the five-four model. So the starting point for all of this is the mayor's draft, and these would be amendments to the mayor's draft that was returned to us. Thank you. You got it. On 9-4B, that's amending the number of appointees to future charter review committees to three mayor, three council, three school committee. Any further discussion by members of the council and then we will open. I want to get the main motion solidified and then we'll have discussion on the motion as amended by the council from members of the public. Any further discussion by members of the council on changing to 333 for the future charter review committees under 9-4B? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, could you call the roll? That's to amend the main motion to include that amendment. There's a second from Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: No, this is a vote on... Okay, yep, just as long as I heard you correctly, Council President, so... Yeah, this is just on the specifically including the amendment to have the number of appointees on future charter review committees Three by the mayor, three by the council, three by the school committee. I appreciate that. Thank you. Is that a yes? Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. The second amendment to the main motion is section 4-1, the motion to remove the mayor from the school committee. I do have one clarifying question. Would this replace the mayor with an at-large member? Okay. So there would be, the school committee would be made up of three at-large members and four district members.
[Zac Bears]: There is an open committee of the whole meeting next week that just opened up. It's either Tuesday or Wednesday. I'd have to confirm. I'd have to check my email. Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, yes, sorry. I've got pop-ups covering you.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, yep. And there's 2 more motions before we get to the motion to amend to refer to committee though.
[Zac Bears]: If it were, Vice President Collins, I will just say procedurally, if this were adopted and then the main motion were referred to Committee of the Whole, there'd be an opportunity of Committee of the Whole to then revert it. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Huh?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I thought that was I think the question is whether you would amend your motion to amend
[Zac Bears]: To not vote on it now.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Sorry, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Instead of going to committee of the whole we could schedule a special regular meeting at the available time.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with an at-large member was made by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: And seconded by Councilor Leming. So Councilor Collins has indicated that she would prefer to vote on that amendment now. I will however say, or I'm asking you now, Three amendments from now, we have an amendment to refer this to a committee of the whole next week. Councilor Scarpelli has requested that that be amended to refer to a special regular meeting next week. Would you be amenable to that?
[Zac Bears]: Great, so we'll change that to a special regular meeting. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming and Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins and then Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Please be Tuesday the 15th at 6pm.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. All right, back to where we were. There are four amendments to the main motion. The one we are currently considering is an amendment to section 4-1 to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with one at-large member, you would have a school committee of three at-large and four district. That is Colin's motion, seconded by Councilor Leming. We then have two motions by Councilor Tseng regarding section 8-2 and then a motion by Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to refer this draft as amended to a special meeting of the council next Tuesday, April 15th at 6 p.m. So we are right now on the second Collins amendment 4-1, which is a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with an at-large member, seconded by Councilor Leming. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Once we've gotten through these amendments, we'll have discussion by members of the public on the amended main motion. second from councilor Callahan are sorry. Are you are you calling for discussion my apologies. Are you want to discuss this motion further. All right. Then there's a motion from councilor Collins to amend section 4 dash one to remove the mayor from the school committee replace that with another at large member for a school committee of three at-large members and four district members. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, you're muted.
[Zac Bears]: This is, this is to amend the draft we received from the mayor to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace that with another at-large member. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative one of the negative the motion passes. We're now to Councilor Tsengs two amendments we have an amendment to eight to to revert the changes of citation of the city clerk to the Board of Elections Commissioners, because the Board of Elections Commissioners is the group that has access to the voting roles. Is there a second on that. Seconded by Vice President Collins is there any further discussion. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7-0, the motion passes. The fourth amendment, this is also from Councilor Tseng, would amend 8-2E to a 12% threshold to make sure that the citizen new initiative petition and the repeal referendum have the same signature requirement. Thank you. Is there a second on that? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, no in the negative. The motion passes. Final amendment to the main motion from Councilor Callaghan as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to refer the Mayor's Draft as amended by the motions made at this meeting to a special meeting next week on Tuesday, April 15th at 6pm. Is there a second? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The amendment is approved. We now have a main motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilors Collins, Sang, Callahan, and Scarpelli, which would refer the mayor's draft as amended to a special meeting of the council next week, Tuesday, April 15th at 6 p.m. It's based on the mayor's draft return to the council with the following amendments. Under section 2-1C, removing the one-year in-ward residency requirement for ward Councilors. Under 3-3A, adding back the words or ordinance, which allows the council to appoint members of boards and commissions if the ordinance so says. Under 4-1, a motion to remove the mayor from the school committee and replace with one at-large member to have a school committee of three at-large and four district. Under sections 8-2, a reversion of the certification of petitions to the board of elections commissioners, not the city clerk, and a 12% threshold for signatures so that the new initiative, citizen new initiative petition and the repeal referendum have the same threshold. And finally, under section 9-4B, amending the number of appointees to future charter review committees to three mayor, three council, and three school committee. And that draft would go to the special meeting on April 15th at 6 p.m. for a further discussion. Is there any discussion by members of the council on the main motion to refer to the special meeting as amended? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. You can go to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. We have one hand on Zoom. We have a couple people at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You have two minutes remaining.
[Zac Bears]: I do just, again, want to clarify that we did ask to have substantive meetings starting in September and the mayor, I don't know if she was speaking for the charter study committee or not, asked us to wait for the final report to be complete. We would have started this process months earlier. That's what happened. So it's just the facts. We're going to go to Zoom. Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. Sorry, Milva, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Alyssa Nugent on Zoom. Alyssa, unmute you, you'll have, oh, actually I will go to Councilor Leming and then we'll go to Alyssa. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Let's go through public participation. Yeah, we can do that first.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Alyssa on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on a second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Eunice Brown. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. still here, still alive. I know some people would mind otherwise. But I will say to your point, Procedurally, yes, it will go to a special meeting next week. Whatever version is voted by the council would have to be approved by the mayor. The mayor could have submitted the previous version. This does require consensus of the council and the mayor. So that's part of the process. And again, it is one of the reasons that Councilor Tseng and I had hoped to start this process earlier than the council was able to. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. We'll go to Sharon Hayes. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Miranda Briseño on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think just to that point, right, we have a survey that folks worked really hard to try to make representative, still ended up 82% homeowner, 18% renter in a city that's 55% homeowner, 45% renter. We have the body of the work of the Charter Study Committee, immense research, lots of public outreach. We have the body of work that the council's done, the council's individual councilor's positions. We have councilors who have campaigned a lot, talked to a lot of people around the city for many years, received a significant endorsement from the city by being elected and the number of votes they received. And I think a lot of this comes down to You know, and again, right, word representation, the council has accepted the compromise submitted by the mayor. That was the big issue. It's 8-3, no one motioned to go to 5-4, it's 8-3. There were some other things, most of them small, one of them large. And that's what happens when there's a back and forth negotiation, but fundamentally, All we have in terms of quote unquote knowing what the people think is each different body's interpretation of the work that they've done, and how the public engagement that they have. That's what we have. So, you know, a scientific poll if there was a scientific poll that was representative that said. 40% support, eight, three, 20% support, five, four, 10% support all at large, 10% support, only eight ward councilors. It'd be very easy to make this decision. We don't have that because it didn't happen because the resources weren't put out to do that. So, you know, a lot of people on all sides of this, the council and others included have talked about what do the people want? And this is what the people want. We just have what we think the people want, and most of that is actually just based on what we think, and our opinions, and the work that we've done. So, just putting that out there. I'm going to go to the podium, name and address for the record please give three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Basically, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Technically, we're moving away from quote unquote plan A, but it retains the balance of power largely.
[Zac Bears]: There is no term anymore. It's a special act charter with a strong mayor and a weak council.
[Zac Bears]: As currently referred to the special meeting next week, 11 Councilors, three at large, eight ward.
[Zac Bears]: It's one of the arguments I made that was most pilloried.
[Zac Bears]: That was a motion that was made tonight. Councilor Collins presented it and there was a compelling enough based on that presentation and previous discussions that it was adopted for consideration at next week's meeting. Council Vice President Collins, and I'll pause your time, Andy, so that she can respond.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have no hands on Zoom, so we will go stay at the podium. Nate, name and address record of three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There was an amendment that the language we changed to a word Councilor shall be a voter in the word for which the office is sought so there's not a one year pre-lookback. There also was no one-year look back for at-large council, at-large school committee, at-large or district school committee or mayor. So, it was added back in by the mayor only for the office of ward Councilor but not for any other office. So, that was removed.
[Zac Bears]: I can tell you why I supported it. It was a restriction on the word councilor office that wasn't applied to any other office in the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to finish public comment. You've already spoken on this item. I also have someone on Zoom who's already spoken on this item. So, I'm going to give Matthew
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thanks, MJ.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium for a minute for your second comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom to Eunice for one minute for a second comment. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. As one person, I would agree with what you just said. I think government by unscientific survey is not the best way to make decisions. And that's why other information needs to be included as decision-making factors. I will go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. And just, we know you are Nate Merritt.
[Zac Bears]: Then the next option, I guess question for you is in the spring, a special election could be called, although I think the in within this document it says for the November 2025 election so we might have to pass something again, saying we want it for a special election. It could go on a separate ballot in the 2026 cycle, but state law prohibits state elections and municipal matters from being on the same ballot. So let's say this went on for November 2026, you'd get a ballot with you know, Senator X and Representative X, and then you'd get a ballot with just the, maybe not just the question, but with just municipal matters, potentially just the question about the charter.
[Zac Bears]: There could be a special election that would be called specially and separate. It could also happen. The point being, at least the Collins Center said here, there's two separate ballots, so it adds some logistical issues potentially, or voters need to fill out both ballots, and then you have to keep the ballots separate, but it could happen. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Special elections usually have lower turnout than non-special elections.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Do we have any further public comment? I'm going to go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I see Anthony from the Collins Center, I'm guessing on this specific point. So I'll go to Anthony and then I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, Councilor Leming. And I think the other thing to add on this around the school committee is school committee is also quasi-executive. It has executive functions that the council does not have. Not only appointing the chief executive of the schools, but also line item authority over the school budget, which as we've noted is 40 to 50% of the city budget. So, when we talk about power and authority. In many ways the school committee is as powerful or more powerful than the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think it also is particularly impacts renters who may be moving from one part of the city or another due to the housing crisis. still know the city pretty well may have served for many terms, but suddenly find themselves forced into another ward, and I think to build upon what we're seeing right now.
[Zac Bears]: And we also review the election calendar tonight. Um pulling up papers is at least five months before the election where they have to be a resident. A voter registered voter within the ward. So,
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We don't have any further comment from members of the council, members of the public on the main motion. I will also just add that I think taking, sounded like there would have been a vote with no votes tonight. If it taking a week gets us to a 7-0 result, I'm confident in our legislative delegation to be able to advance a unanimous council vote and the assent of the mayor through formal or informal session. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilors Collins, Sang, Callahan, and Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a yes, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and the affirmative, then the negative. The motion passes. 24-054, sorry, 25-054 vacant building ordinance offered by Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazzaro, whereas the city has several commercial storefronts that have been vacant for a long period of time. Whereas their opportunities to incentivize owners of such property to maintain and rent their storefronts active businesses, whereas active and well maintained databases of business owners in the city of Medford will allow for a more robust and prosperous business community, whereas full vibrant and bustling business districts and city of Medford will allow our community to improve visually and economically and add vitality to our squares and corridors. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council adopt a vacant building ordinance which can be applied to incentivize these storefront properties to remain occupied, or otherwise encourage them to beautify their properties with public art. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the Building Commissioner and Economic Development Director, which committee? Oh fun, you're gonna make me chair in Admin and Finance. On the motion of Council, let me to refer to Admin and Finance, seconded by... Seconded by Councilor Tseng any discussion I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councils are Council let me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to refer this to the committee on administration and finance and refer this to the building commissioner and city legal counsel for review. Council is our.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. To the petitioners or the offering Councilors, got to tell them which committee to send it to if you want it in the refer to committee section.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I also just want to thank you. I know that we discussed this about a year ago. And it sounds like through work with the economic development team and the chamber, we're moving along on this path, which I think is important of not just carrots, but also understanding there are some sticky wickets and sticks are sometimes necessary. So thank you for your work on this. I will go to Matthew Page-Lieberman name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to ask. Councilor Collins, if less folks mind. This is a relatively form resolution in some discussions with some experts. and folks who are working to have MassHealth work better to support children in Massachusetts with autism spectrum disorder. There is a way that the state could change the way that it has care set up here. Essentially right now, there's a large wait list of 2,000 to 3,500 children, ages two to five, who aren't getting the care that they need because of a shortage of key practitioners. And while specialists can diagnose autism by age to the average age of autism diagnosis in Massachusetts is 5.3 years old, and that can put children at risk of receiving critical critical intervention. At a time of narrow and ever closing windows of human neurological development and basically what's happening here is Massachusetts has a two tier delivery model. Rather than a three tier delivery model like some other states and adding what is called a board certified assistant applied behavior analyst has allowed these states to double the amount of clients and young people who are able to be seen by board certified applied behavior analysts. So this is a request that we urge the executive office of health and human services and MassHealth without delay to recognize this, implement this three tier model and add the role of an assistant behavioral analyst to the current system because it would allow our system to see more young people and diagnose autism sooner, and it has been effective in other states.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would also just note that the coalition to improve quality and end wait lists lists a number of organizations, including the mass association of school superintendents, masters professionals in behavior analysis, council of autism service providers, as well as 23 mayors, including mayor logo. You want to say anything on the motion of councilor Leming to approve seconded by Councilor Collins, any further discussion. Seeing no discussion by Councilors is there any discussion by members of the public. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We may have lost Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in 60 for me to what I've seen the motion passes to 5058 request request list request report on tree rules and keep in park be resolved with the dpw Commissioner and city arborist or back to the council with the reasons and process for true removal at Cape and Park Councilors capital.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is that a motion receiving place on file? Yes, please. On the motion receiving place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please. Councilor Lazzaro is still here, right? Yep. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. Do we read this whole thing. I'll read it 25059 a resolution encouraging peace unity and constructive dialogue on the Israel Palestine conflict and condemning anti semitism offered by Councilors Kelly, whereas city of Medford values diversity inclusivity and the peaceful coexistence of all citizens regardless of race, religion or national origin. And whereas Medford is home to a vibrant diverse community including Jewish Muslim and other faith based populations who contribute to the social, cultural and economic fabric of our city. And whereas the city council recognizes that Israel Palestine conflict is a complex and long standing issue with a history of suffering on both sides and acknowledges the pain and hardship faced by both Israelis and Palestinians. And whereas Medford affirms that the right of Israel to exist and defend itself from violence should be recognized as an important principle of international law. And whereas the city of Medford expresses sorrow over the tragic events of October 7 2023 when Hamas carried out an attack that led to the loss of over 1200 lives the abduction of innocent civilians. And whereas Medford city of Medford condemns all acts of violence including terrorism and stands for victims of violence regardless of their national identity or religious background. And whereas the city of entry recognize that anti semitism is a serious issue with a painful history, where we must and we must stand against all forms of hate and discrimination in our community and beyond, and whereas the city of Medford also acknowledges the difficulties faced by Palestinians, including displacement and lack of a permanent homeland, and supports efforts to find peaceful resolution of their challenges. And whereas the city of Medford believes the path forward in the Israel-Palestine conflict lies in peaceful dialogue, mutual respect, human-to-human rights for all individuals, regardless of ethnicity or religion, and whereas the city of Medford recognizes that while individuals may have differing views on the appropriate responses to the conflict, it is essential to ensure these differences do not lead to division of our community or demonization of any group. And whereas the city of Medford encourages dialogue and peaceful discussion as a means to foster understanding and believes that divisive actions, such as divestments or boycotts may undermine these efforts and should be approached with caution. And whereas the city of Medford acknowledges the painful history of antisemitism and other forms of hatred, and reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that bigotry has no place in our city or our collective future. Now therefore be it resolved that the city of Medford City Council condemns all forms of hate, including anti semitism and commits to fostering environment of respect and understanding for all people regardless of their background or identity. affirms the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state and its right to protect citizens from violence, encourages continued dialogue and efforts towards a peaceful and just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict where the rights and dignity of Israelis and Palestinians are respected, supports the people of Medford in engaging in thoughtful, respectful dialogue on this important issue, recognizing the need for understanding and reconciliation between communities with differing viewpoints, urges caution and considering measures such as divestment or boycotts and instead encourages actions that promote diplomacy mutual understanding and peace encourages all citizens of Medford to unite and sending its violence hatred and extremism in all forms while advocating for peace, security and justice for all people. supports and supports educational efforts in the community to increase awareness and understanding of the complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and to promote constructive and respectful discussions on this and other important issues. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council will continue to encourage peace, unity, and understanding, and will work to create opportunities for meaningful dialogue among all members of Medford's diverse community. Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table by Councilor Collins. Is there a second on the motion? Motion to table by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Council, yes, a motion to table is undebatable. Is there any further discussion? Well, it's undebatable. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Can't vote present. Sorry. No. Oh. All right. So I think we're just gonna have to mark you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's fine. If it's because of that.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative one and the negative one present the motion is tabled. And one absent. One, one, one.
[Zac Bears]: Oh a participation to participate outside of zoom please email a her to be submitted for an ma.gov. This is the part of the meeting where anyone can participate on any issue for three minutes the Council cannot take votes. I have a hand on Zoom, unless there's anyone who wants to speak in the chamber. Who's in line first? Somebody go first. All right, we'll start here, three minutes. Name and address for the record, please, and then we'll go to Zoom, and then we'll come back to the chamber.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: and in Brazil. What? Matt, MJ, MJ, one second, I'm gonna pause your time. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: That's what I did say. Thank you. Evan Cheng, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you go back to the podium name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I just want to note it was tabled. So this is where this public participation piece gets a little messy, is what should we be talking about. I'll go, we'll say we don't have any hands will stay at the podium, name and name and address the record three minutes, a mirror through some through Riverside have I'm not talking about this topic, something completely different that's allowable that's yeah that's okay cool honestly I'm uncertain, I'm going to pause your time as the chair I'm legitimately uncertain as to whether If a resolution is tabled, we should be able to talk about it in the open public participation section, but continue. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: The building has been is structurally failing. And that's why they're closing that's why the daycare move that's why all those tenants were protesting their notices to quit in last fall, the property owners the Hamilton companies. Essentially, they actually tried to have the building condemned last year. to accelerate their ability to move people out of it. But because there are severe structural issues with the building. My understanding is that the community development planning about the sustainability office and the economic development director met and spoke with the owners trying to connect them directly with other spaces in the city, and that they decided to not move this business but to focus on another business that they have involved in which I think is more of a restaurant. Yes. but there was active communication there. And the other thing I can say is that we have been trying to get the, there's an RFP process going on for the vacant city-owned lots that surround this building. The Hamilton Properties also owns the Riverside Plaza building and then that building across East Transit Way all the way down to I think they actually own everything down to the old Papagenos, which is now the dentist's office. Which dentist's office? Who knows? We have been trying to get them to incorporate their properties, you know, or talk to them. And we included in the RFP to say, hey, reach out to neighboring property owners to see if maybe we could expand this project and include even other properties because the city owns the parking behind that building. And That is ongoing those discussions are ongoing, I think because of the state of the structure. It's going to have to, there's going to need to be significant renovation or demolition is my understanding the building commissioner and development office but no more. Oh, not to say the city has been very active in this question. Sure. And I know there was direct outreach to NBC to try to get see if there was a place that they could move. And they, I think they decided not to, is my understanding, I don't know Councilor Tseng do you have more information.
[Zac Bears]: Think of how much older I am than him. That's where I spent mine. Thank you. Anyone who wants to speak for the first time for public comment we're going to go to first time people before we go to people for their second. Let's cast any three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: And I don't think we're going to go down this road here. I'm not allowed to tell you what to say I'm literally legally prohibited. Well, some of it might be but it sounds pretty messed up man. Let them know, I just wanted to be clear that I'm legally prohibited from regulating when people are able to say this body and it's frustrating, continue.
[Zac Bears]: All right. We can go back. Would you like to speak again? Get another minute in here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. We're still in public participation. Go to the podium, do a minute, since this is your second time around on this.
[Zac Bears]: MJ, I'm gonna have to page you and then we'll go to you for a minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion in public participation tonight? Councilor Tseng it's participation over. Yeah. All right. So what is it, Councilor Tseng, go ahead. Take the McCormick parcels off the table. Take paper 25020 off the table by Councilor Tseng seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 25020 McCormick Avenue parcels. All right, color was clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion is taken off the table. Two, five, zero, two, zero. McCormick Avenue Parcels, Transfer and Conveyance. The motion to reject by Councilor Tseng. So voting yes means rejecting. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Again, this is a motion to reject. Voting yes means it fails. On the motion, okay. It's now a motion to approve. Yeah, exactly. Shane's gonna lose it. I mean, you can motion to whatever you want, but the point here being this is a motion to approve. If you vote yes, it is approved. If you vote no, it is denied. So if you do not want to transfer and convey these parcels, vote no. Is there any discussion, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Is there no discussion by members of the Council. Any discussion by members of the public here on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, one time funds for one time expense we got a Councilor's are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Public participation, Matthew Page-Lieberman, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is a motion to approve. To vote no means that the council would not allow the land to be sold.
[Zac Bears]: That is correct as part of our collective budget recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Any further public participation on this item. Seeing none, Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears know to the affirmative for the negative one absence the motion fails, any further discussion. That's a client is absent Vice President Collins Council is our own.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, President Chair Collins. I just want to apologize to Councilor Scarpelli. That was my omission of putting this on the agenda. I do think a paper did go up at some point to the mayor's office that included the information. So that's on the agenda. That's on me. But I think it went up with records whenever you made that.
[Zac Bears]: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Q and a with the planning department and City Council on the neighborhood residential zoning and the urban residential zoning. Thanks for bearing with us. I know there have been some good conversations happening outside. Um, We're going to tonight have a presentation and introduction from the director of planning, development and sustainability, Alicia Hunt and our zoning consultant, Emily Ennis. And then we're going to move to a Q&A. We also have a planner, Danielle Evans, and Paolo Ramos Martinez from Innes Associates. They are out in the rotunda with a number of large maps. And those are maps that folks can put post-it notes on with their comments and also have some discussions if they have kind of want to have a longer conversation with Paula and Danielle in the rotunda. So with that, thank you for being here and we're going to get started with Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to say one one more thing, which is what I don't think I properly introduced Vice President Collins. So apologies for that. Um, and who is chair of the planning permitting committee and has really been doing so amazing work, especially on the outreach as of late. And one other thing that I think is important in grounding that we've had in a lot of these zoning conversations that I think is good to just add is changing the zoning doesn't mean that anyone who owns a piece of property has to change anything about their property. So if we change the zoning to something else and you have a single family home on a lot and suddenly you move from a SF2 district to an NR3 district, you don't have to change anything about your property. you want to keep your single family home, you can keep your single family home. Um and because of this quirk of most of the zoning having passed after most of the buildings in the city were built. Um what would happen is that your home would become a non conforming structure or a non conforming use. And what that means in our zoning is actually that that's that may also be a pre-existing non-conforming use, to maintain that use or maintain that structure, it doesn't mean that if you have a single family in a district that suddenly has allowed three families that you have to change anything about your home. So I think that's really important to understand too. This is not a mandate. on anyone to do anything to their property. It is simply changing what private property owners are allowed to do with their private property. And I just think that's something that sometimes isn't included in these conversations that I think is important to talk about. So I just wanted to say that before we get started. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we can move to Q&A. We have this here and raise your hand on Zoom and we'll alternate.
[Zac Bears]: Emily, just on the map, is the light gray the half? Is that a quarter mile radius?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and then the half mile goes out further. Yeah, we are definitely talking about Tufts and institutional zoning. It is something that we're taking up in April, I believe. And we want to put in the Tufts institutional zone and whatever power is in our disposal to control Tufts, which is we probably there's more that we can do, but it is also limited. And I think we've had some honest discussions on the planning permitting committee around. Should this be an NR3 like the rest of everything? Should it be a UR1? We've definitely heard some comments around the NR3 instead of the UR1 because a lot of the existing condition is very similar to the neighborhood outside of it. And then we've heard the flip side, which is if you're within the quarter mile radius of like one of our only three rapid transit stations, what should you do around density there? So I think, you know, hearing more of those comments, maybe pulling back the you are one to a smaller piece of that area might make sense. Maybe going to NR3 would make sense. I'm interested to hear what the Community Development Board input through public input is on that as well. But in terms of comparison to Wellington, The area immediately around the Wellington station for transit is going to be part of a special district where it's going to be. It already is part of an overlay district that has high density and likely is going to have mixed use district with very high density. So we are intending that the Wellington T station, certainly the quarter mile radius and into the half mile radius. would look much denser than the UR1 district around the Medford-Tufts station. And that's because of what's there now. We have two hands on Zoom. Do you want to go to Andrew?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Andrew in request to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would just add on inclusionary zoning right now the city's inclusionary zoning kicks it into 10 units. Yeah, building. trying to get the funding to do the nexus study to update our affordable housing linkage fees and the inclusionary zoning ordinance. One barrier that we have now is that the Supreme Court has said that things like linkage fees and potentially inclusionary zoning can be defined as illegal takings by the government, essentially requiring financial taking from a private property owner. So in order for our linkage fees and our inclusionary zoning to be legally defensible and unchallengeable, we have to do market analysis to determine what the market can bear. And if we say you have to have 50% affordable in order to build this thing on your property, that's been added to the zoning ordinance. The landowner can challenge that call that a taking and then basically just what our inclusionary zoning ordinance would become invalid. They may not have to build any affordable housing at all, so it's another barrier that's we're not going to be able to do that. But um, we are hoping at least my hope is that we can do an analysis and maybe reduce the place at which the units start. Um so maybe take that down from a 10 unit to a six unit. Another thing that we can update with our inclusionary zoning, and this is part of the ongoing part of this larger project. Um is to include that. Essentially that if the number of required units ended up being 7.5 or let's say .5, for example, for a very like a six unit development instead of either just getting one or no affordable units, the developer would pay a cash payment into our affordable housing trust fund, and that could be used to support affordable housing at another private location. So those are some of the things we're looking at. But the inclusionary, uh, is a discussion we're having. I think in May.
[Zac Bears]: Another option we could look at is we're starting to see that. In the mixed use quarters and squares. We developed this incentive zoning program. So if someone adds affordable units, they can build another story. I don't know if we want to do that. There may be in the you are too. We want to add an incentive zoning so you could go to a fourth story. But I think we're starting, you know, you're balancing a lot of concerns there, so we didn't
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Laurie, and we can definitely on the side work with the assessor just to try to figure out what changed on your paperwork. And I'm sure that the historical commission might have some documentation as well. And we could bring that to the assessor just to change it, change it back or get it right. either way you'd fall under the, I guess we wrote it as 70, but we, I think we meant 75. Right now, the historical ordinance for demolition delay is 75 years. I think we wanted the historical conversion to match that. So that might just be, so you're good either way, but, and quite frankly, most one, two, and three family housing in the city was built before 1950. So it would fall under the, it falls under demo delay. If there's a historical commission, if someone wanted to demolish a property that age, not saying that you would want to do that, but that's one of the reasons that we wanted to match those. I think A couple things that you said really brought out some of the points as to why we're trying to do what we're trying to do, and some of it is difficult, and I think that's just something we've been trying to acknowledge throughout the process. Change is never easy. The first thing is, I appreciate you saying it, you know, one of the things that I've heard that I've really liked, because I think it makes a really important point, is that the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is rent control for homeowners. And that's why, you know, it provides you that stability where you don't have to worry about being priced out and constantly moving. And that's why I think it's important to note that zoning is one piece of a number of strategies that we're trying to either employ because we have the power to or get the state to give us the power to employ. Um, this is the one that's about we control zoning so we can control what legally can be built on property, essentially the supply question. Um, you know, another piece of the housing cost issue is that demand. There's a lot more people want to live in Medford than we have houses for. So that's why the prices are skyrocketing so quickly. Um, And one of the other things that we try to do to answer that is right subsidizing the price so section eight, or the raft assistance program at the state level so that's like trying to subsidize the price doesn't really solve the problem but it does help some people. The flip side of that is like a rent stabilization or rent control where you say you the price can only go up this far, but it also doesn't solve the long term problem, which is more people want to live here than we have houses for. So I think what we're trying to do here is say, 30 years ago, when you were moving from Cambridge and Somerville was not affordable, but Menford was, that radius has expanded, right? That radius, you could say goes out to 95, maybe 495 now. And the question is, how do we have more units that people can either rent or buy in Medford where we can try to keep the price reasonable and try to keep the prices stable for as long as we can? Yeah, and people like my parents, we couldn't buy the house. My parents couldn't buy the house that they live in today. They only bought it 30 years ago because it was the price that it was then. I can't buy a house in the city right now. And I think that's true of a lot of people. We are a 55% homeowner, 45% renter city, and a lot of people who rent want to stay. And just in the discussions, we're having folks around Salem Street. I got an email from someone who lives right off of Salem Street who says, I've lived here for five years. They're selling my house. I have to move to outside of Waltham. The back end of Waltham out by 95. But I'd love to stay in Medford. And really, what we're trying to do, and this is a piece of that strategy, is how can we get more units in the city so that people can afford to live here? If some of them are for sale, essentially, I think someone had a great analogy. If we do nothing, if we just status quo, we have the number of units we have and we don't do anything, the prices are just gonna keep going up. and if you own you're going to be okay because well maybe not but most people are going to be okay if they can afford to pay their mortgage and their taxes right um but new people aren't going to be able to move here and a lot of people are eventually going to have to end up selling for some reason um retirement or or something else. And the prices are just going to keep going up. So we're not going to have the generational wealth opportunities, we're not going to have the ability for the children of people who live here now to try to buy another unit in the city unless they somehow are, you know, making 200 or $300,000 a year, which most people don't. Um, and one of the other pieces of that question is also just household size. The average household size is declining. So if you have a lot of larger homes where you may have had a family of four, a family of six, that is now just one or two people, um, you, you know, you need you would essentially need to have three, like a triple-decker on that property to have just the same density that you had maybe 30 years ago or 40 years ago. So that's why we believe that the densification here is important. It helps create not just this deed-restricted affordable housing, which has legal limits and you can't force people to build more of it than the market can bear, But to try to build more housing so that existing housing stock maybe goes down in price, so that we can try to better match supply and demand with the conditions that we face today.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's another reason. Right now, what we're seeing is that the land is so valuable that someone can build a giant single family home and leave it empty for years and still make a profit.
[Zac Bears]: And I think the bet we're trying to say is if we can get them to build smaller units, more affordable units, not just these luxury units, by allowing more density in the same place than exists now, it could help reduce the vacancy. Part of the problem is we can't control what they do. But we're trying to change the, essentially adjust the market balance here to be more a priority of what actual people need. and less of these things that people can't afford. But there's a regional question, and even if we did all of this tomorrow, I don't think we're gonna solve the whole problem, but I think we're moving in the right direction.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer that, and I'll try to be brief. There's going to be a Community Development Board public hearing on April 2nd. They may conclude their hearing at that meeting, and they may extend it to their next meeting. Once that's reported out, it would come back to the City Council for a public hearing. The earliest we would consider that would be April 16th. It may be extended beyond that. and that city council public hearing would be the final approval. So at the earliest, it would be April 16th after the upcoming two public hearings. And in terms of if there is new zoning, how would you build something under it? You would go to the building department and you would request a building permit and they will tell you whether or not your permit meets the conditions of the zoning. And if not, then there might be another process that you might have to go through like a special permit or something else. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You will go to Louise on Zoom. You got it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, one thing. So one thing that's changing and it's partly because of the state law right now from the recodification and attached at you can be done by right. but a detached 80 requires a special permit. This will move both to a buy right status, which is one change. One thing we do need to look at when you mentioned egress is I think we actually have talked about building code. It may require a second form of egress, but this is where it differs from a second principal unit on the same lot. I don't think it needs a second I don't think you have to have two separate doors outside of the building. I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think that might be a building code thing, not a zoning thing. And we're going to, we could look at that. And that's the state building code that we function under.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to add to, um, that when we talk about this citywide rezoning, we are talking about densification in all districts and all neighborhoods. I certainly could be amenable to the argument that the NR one district should be an NR two district. I'm not against that. I think where we came in with this proposal was looking at existing structures, what's already there, the number of private ways, topography, and, you know, the NR one lot size. I mean, so we're reducing lot size minimums. Excuse me, excuse me, thank you. we're reducing lot size minimums, we are reducing setbacks, we're increasing maximum coverage even in the NR1. There are lots up there, right now in the SF1, it's a 7,000 lot size minimum. So that's the most, that is the biggest lot size minimum in the whole city. So the NR1 does increase density in those NR1 districts. Yes, it does.
[Zac Bears]: So if I interrupt you, so you can correct me and you're if you could just let me finish.
[Zac Bears]: I think it is. Is it a conversation or community input? Or is it yell at me day?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I've read it. So we're trying to have a discussion conversation. I don't think throwing around accusations of dishonesty and interrupting me is going to help us to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I already was, but you interrupted me, so.
[Zac Bears]: All right. You know, if it's not worth it. He's not answering. If anyone else wants to discuss this issue with me, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If anyone wants to ask a reasonable question and have a dialogue with me, I'm happy to have it, but. I'm not sure what you're.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm not. My point being, if I could finish my point, was that this plan is about increasing density in every part of the city. Every district proposed generally does that. And if you look at the existing conditions map, that is one of the reasons that districts were drawn the way they were drawn. Thank you. It reduces lot size minimums, reduces setbacks.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just to add to it, we also have something let's say we did a UR1, but you wanted to expand your single family, that's now a pre-existing non-conforming use and structure, then you can go up to 150% of the status that it was before. So you could still even add an addition to a single family, even under the UR1, but there would be some limitations. Thank you. Ren Bean on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon Diesso. Somebody knows her name. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're requesting that you unmute. Sharon Diesso. Sharon, we'll ask one more time and then we'll come back to you. We're pressing the ask unmute button. There should be a pop up on your screen that says unmute. And then when you click that, you will be able to hear you. We're going to come back to you, Sharon. So we'll go to Andrew McRobert on Zoom. Andrew, name and address. Oh, sorry. Wrong meeting.
[Zac Bears]: It's amazing when you realize a new instinct.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, we're going to try you again on Zoom. We're asking that you unmute. Kit has requested that you unmute. We're going to try again. You should see a pop up, and there should be a blue button that says unmute. We can't make you unmute, sadly.
[Zac Bears]: Well, it would solve this problem.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right, Sharon, we're going to come back to you again. Go to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I for one am grateful for anyone who's living in the unit with more than two people in it. Because that's that we're going to have to make sure that we're helping the cause when we're we have such a unit shortage. Um. And you actually just raised an important point that I think maybe we need to factor into the multiplex discussion, which is if we're going to allow them. Do they end up qualifying under site plan review? And then there's a higher threshold of regulation. So you maybe wouldn't have them coming in and just going with through. So just all of these different thoughts that we've I would hope that that's subject to our open space and lot coverage requirements. I don't know if the state mandated one can't be less permissive than the single family, but that would mean that on the lot you still could have a maximum lot coverage of 50% and that would include the principal and accessory structure. So that I think is something important. And then for me, the second The question of the second ADU, how I envision it as a test case, and I think, you know, and I'm not necessarily saying that everyone else on the council or the community development board or in this process would agree with me, would be that you could have, say, like a 900 square foot attached ADU, and then say you had a pre-existing carriage house or structure, that maybe that would be something that would qualify under a special permit for some reason. that we're trying to do. I don't think that's the intent, but I tend to agree with you that it would be a loophole if you could build a two unit 2100 square foot livable area structure behind your 1200 square foot house and call it an accessory unit, and I don't think that's the. You know, intent of what we're trying to do so, making sure that we match the idea of a it's something I definitely and I hope we could ask to maybe Jonathan about just making sure around the dimensional requirements as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just wanted to throw in, and I know we've said not long answers and this has been another long answer, but the I think one of the things we're trying to balance here too is what is the threshold where more process is beneficial and what is the threshold where more process is harmful. And I think like Judy and Mike raised. if you take the single family out of the UR1, you might not be creating more process for a small property owner versus when you have a six unit threshold versus a five unit or a four unit threshold for site plan review. At what point is that impacting what we would consider a small property owner versus a developer, right? And that's kind of another one of these, you know, spectrum where we're like hitting, nearing a threshold and like what What is the definition that best fits? And I think that's just some of the conversations and considerations that we're taking into account.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think one of them is the, I can never remember exactly the thing, but the single stairwell versus the double stairwell where, because you can't, you can basically, you can't have apartments with a cross breeze anymore because of the building code. But I think that state building code, and I don't think there's really anything.
[Zac Bears]: That's possible. Yeah, totally. But no, and you know, it makes me think, The more that we're having the conversations, the more I wonder if we need to add one more step of gradient or if we need to shift everything up. And you know i'd be interested again in the discussion with the community development board Like should there be an nr4 or if we end up getting rid of nr, you know Does nr2 become nr1, you know i'm just saying if we end up getting rid of nr1 and then that down shifts But then should there be a ur1 2 and 3 and then maybe in the one you allow the single family And so it just a little bit changes the scope of what we're talking about. Um But I'm just wondering if we got the gradient a little too constrained, and either need to shift upshifted or add another step somewhere to better meet what some of the comments we're hearing.
[Zac Bears]: And I think just like I think we're going to hit this rubber is going to beat the road, especially on the Main Street, Medford Street corridor, where you do have the mixed use, but maybe it would make sense to have a you are three with an incentive zone because you might want to have four story all residential facing the main corridor. And so I think that's something we maybe want to think about too. Or maybe it's four to six. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: And maybe we don't get rid of all of NR1, a portion of NR1, but you added NR4. And that could replace this UR1 in the burgadab area, right? So maybe you would allow four, but you wouldn't allow the multiplex, and it meets more of that lot question.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's one of the things that we're going to do a parking discussion specifically around the parking table and how it would apply to all the new zones in May. One of the things that I am really pushing that we include is that if If you can't meet a certain parking minimum on a new construction that the units can't get parking permits for the street. So essentially, it would be to say in this new construction, and it would, you know. there's where you're gonna have one off-street parking spot per unit, and you will not have access to permit parking on the public way. And that's been effective in other communities where they've, they're essentially trying to say, you're 1,500 feet from the commuter rail. We're trying to have this be people who, either a family with a single car or a carless family, and you can't park on the public way because that's not what this structure is designed for.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think that's a, you know, I think you can control for it by parking control, right? I mean, if they're on the street, without a permit, they would be ticketed on the weekend ticket.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think one of the things, I think, considerations that we made when we're talking about where are the lines in West Medford is how the lines were drawn in the 60s under the last zoning. And it was, to be, I'm not to malign anyone who was involved in the process if they are still around, but it was very clear that the African American, historically African American neighborhood was put as a GR, three unit district, and the mostly white neighborhood was single family. And I think the question is, where do you draw the line now? Do you keep the line because the existing condition of the existing housing reflects that? poor decision or not?
[Zac Bears]: And I completely, I think it's like a totally, I was just raising that point to be like, when we were looking at these lines in this neighborhood, it was like, well, we can just keep the same line. But then what are we, what dynamics are we reproducing that we don't want to be reproducing? But yeah, I think there's a lot of other considerations. And I'm going to go to Emily, who probably will say what those are.
[Zac Bears]: And I think and just I wanted to make two other points. Um, one. The lot sizes and the development patterns themselves are tied into these historical dynamics and it's like, how do we have an equitable arrangement across the city, where a big chunk of the city has 3000 square foot lots. Yeah, and another chunk of the city has five to eight to 9000 square foot lots and it's like, so if we just maintain everything based on the existing lot size and condition. So I think we're trying to factor all that into somewhat of a balance. And then I think, and I'm not saying you're saying we're not.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think one of the issues here is when we're drawing lines, one parcel's on one side of the line and one parcel's on the other side of the line, and there's gonna be disparate treatment between those two parcels, and that's where the most tension is, right? And you're close to a line, so the tension point feels a little harder than someone who's in the center of a district, where it's like everyone around me is being treated exactly the same. And that's another, I mean, Somerville got rid of that by saying triple-deckers everywhere. which I don't think is the approach that we're taking.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. I'm going to look into this data more too, because the interesting thing is on the population chart on the next page, that doesn't have the uptick. The unit has the uptick, but the population chart doesn't have the uptick. And is that then a vacancy question, or is it a decreasing average household side question, where it's the point is like, yes, we've added all these units, but because your average household size is one to two people- You're selling million dollar condos to a couple. Exactly. And so it's like we could build 10,000 units and we could build 1,000 units and have no impact, but maybe 10,000 units does. And it's actually the same amount of people living in the same place.
[Zac Bears]: And yeah, and I mean, that's the other interesting piece too, is in the developments that we're seeing come in, it's studio one and two family, and the average unit size is 800 to 900 square feet in those developments, right? That's the type of housing, so that's why most of the new build is in those five plus units buildings. So it's, yeah, it's as a fellow economics major, a fascinating set of conditions and equations. Yeah, excellent. All right, thank you guys, I appreciate it. Come on up to the mic.
[Zac Bears]: And the green score has a lot of different elements. It's a complicated equation, but essentially to maximize those environmental benefits, I just want to take two of the things. I think if we're looking at potentially a regradation of this NR1 to 3, UR1, UR2, to add a sixth grade or shift it around a little bit, Something we could also consider is, let's say that instead of UR1, we create an NR4 where you have single family by right. just for the neighborhood that you guys are in and talking about right now, since that's kind of been our reference point for it. Let's say that was NR4 instead of UR1, so maybe it's four units would be allowed, but it's still the lot size and height of the NR3 district. And I'm just hypothesizing right now. You could then say that in this new UR2, which might be in another part of the city, you could do the multiplex by special permit. So that would be site plan review with the ability to turn it down for certain reasons instead of by right. So there's some gradations within that shift where maybe we're adapting to what we're hearing and the conditions. The other thing we're talking about, and eventually it will align with this process, is we've been working with Therese Medford and the Energy and Environment Committee for many years on the tree ordinances, which it was one ordinance. It's now three ordinances. One of them is to create a tree committee. One of them is about public trees, which are under a certain set of Massachusetts general law. So that's the trees essentially under city control in the public way. And then there's a zoning piece of this process where we're looking at how to preserve and protect trees on private property, where essentially other communities around us have implemented ordinances that say if you are removing mature trees, you have to replace them and you have to mitigate that in some way, either through a placement or by paying a cost or in the new site plan, having something there. And that's even, it's on a spectrum based on the maturity of the tree, because obviously replacing a mature tree with one other tree doesn't address the canopy question in the same way.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so that is one of the ordinances that's a project that we're... One of our... Hey, look at Kim. Our many projects that's... Yeah, Anna Callahan is leading on that project as well. So, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sixth regular meeting, Medford City Council, March 25th, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. President Bears. Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 25046 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved, in recognition of the 50th wedding anniversary of Richard and Cheryl Montecalvo, the warmest congratulations and best wishes on this joyous occasion are offered. For 50 years, Richard and Cheryl have shared a remarkable journey of love, commitment and devotion, serving as an inspiration to family. friends and your community. Your partnership is a testament to the strength of love, the power of unity, and the beauty of a lifelong commitment. In recognition of this momentous occasion, the City of Medford proudly honors this milestone, celebrating the cherished memories you've created and the legacy of love you continue to build. Therefore, be it so resolved, on behalf of the Medford City Council, I extend heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for continued happiness, health, and love in the years ahead. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. We're gonna have to wait for the clerk here for a minute. Anyone else want to comment on this item?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, negative, the motion passes their motion to take papers and inspection. I motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just go Pelley counter saying, President Bears, yes, affirmative, then the negative emotion. 25049 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli in memory of William Billy Oganeski. Whereas the Medford City Council is deeply saddened by the passing of William M. Billy Oganeski, a lifelong resident of Medford and devoted public servant who passed away on March 15th, 2025 at the age of 73. And whereas Billy was a beloved husband of 51 years to Paula, a loving father to Tiffany Marino and her husband, Tori, and to Gerald and his wife, Danielle, a proud and devoted papa to Devin, Jerrica, Isabel, Tori and Nathan. and a caring brother, uncle, and friend to many. And, whereas, Billy honorably served the city of Medford at Oak Grove Cemetery for 50 years, during which time he became a familiar kind presence to many residents, forming lasting friendships and embracing the natural beauty and wildlife around him. And, whereas, Billy found joy in the simple pleasures of life, spending time with family, tending to his garden, enjoying a good breakfast at Polar Bear Restaurant, sharing laughter, cheering on Boston sports teams, and spreading warmth and kindness to those around him. And whereas Billy will be remembered for the most for the love he had for his grandchildren, whom he supported wholeheartedly in their endeavors, often with a smile, a kind word, and a shared chocolate chip cookie. And whereas the passing of Billy Oganoski is a profound loss to his family, friends, colleagues, and the entire Medford community, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council sends its deepest condolences to the Oganoski family and honors the life and legacy of William M. Billy Oganoski for his dedication, service, and unwavering commitment to the community he loved.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And did we have a further amendment to dedicate the cemetery way and his name?
[Zac Bears]: No, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I just wanted to make sure that was heard. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears, yes seven affirmative none of the negative the motion passes to 5048 offered under suspension by Vice President Collins be resolved at the city council meet on April 8 and committee of the whole to go over parking department related matters. One the use of surveillance technology pursuant to the community control over public surveillance ordinance to. updates on the Green Line Extension parking program, three parking ordinance updates, section 78-173, municipal employee and municipal business parking. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, does that sound good?
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. On the motion of Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears. Yes. The records of the meeting of March 11th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli and the records of the joint session of March 19th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Tseng. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng and then maybe we can have a motion to join and approve to cut down on one roll call.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion to join and approved by Councilors Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. I have affirmative, none the negative motion passes. Maybe we could do the same here for reports of committees. 25037 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 11th, 2025. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, March 12th, 2025. And 25039 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, March 18th, 2025. um for 037 that was the meeting with uh walk medford and the medford bicycle advisory commission to discuss safety improvements and the budget recommendations of the bike commission anything more on that motion to join the reports and great do you have anything more it was your kind of meeting do you have anything uh no it's um it's in the report uh in the
[Zac Bears]: Great. And we're going to try to have a further meeting on enforcement. Great. On the motion of Council Zahra to join and approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan, I'll go to Vice President Collins for the Planning and Permitting Committee report.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and on 25 or three nine committee of the whole March 18 2024 and 2025 sorry. This was when we discussed budget recommendations, and we can see the combined budget recommendations and other budget documents in the agenda tonight. On the motion of Council is our to join and approve seconded by Councilor Callahan Mr. Clark, please call it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, no negative, the motion passes. Hearings 25-032, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway. The Community Development Board held a public hearing on this Wednesday, March 19th, relative to a petition by Nutter, McLennan, and Fish representing trends of real estate to amend the text of the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District. to amend the table of dimensional standards in section E, to add a footnote regarding front yard setbacks that coincide with restrictions for public agency buildings, to change the incentive bonus from certified to certifiable for LEED status, and to amend the definition section to add clarifying text to the definition of building coverage. to make it clear that it doesn't include building overhangs. A subsequent public hearing will be held on the same matter by the Medford City Council on March 25th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. A link to the public hearing will be posted no later than March 21st, 2025. Signed, Adam Herdeby, City Clerk. We did get a memo back from Community Development Board. They have recommended Approval, but they did unanimously 60 recommended approval of the zoning amendment with the following recommended revision to the definition of building coverage to be incorporated. And that reads as follows, building coverage, the maximum area of the lot that can be attributed to the footprint of the building's principle and accessory on that lot. Building coverage does not include surface parking. Building coverage also does not include any portion of the building above the ground floor that overhangs such ground floor. If the overhang does not exceed 10% of the footprint of the ground floor of the building, then the overhang is not part of the calculation of the building coverage. Overhangs greater than 10% are counted as part of the building coverage. And with that, I will open the public hearing to comments for, against, or in any other way on this project. And I noticed we have counsel from Nutter, McLennan, and Fish here, if you'd like to share anything and speak in favor, I'm assuming, of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, I know we've already heard from you once here, so thank you. I'll open it up again to anyone else who'd like to speak. As part of this public hearing in favor in opposition or otherwise you can come to the podium, or raise your hand on zoom and I will recognize you. All right, seeing none of the coin the public hearing closed. On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. With the recommendations of the Community Development Board. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 25045, Appeal of a Signed Permit Refusal, 42 Fulbright Street. We have here from the Law Office of Kathleen A. Desmond, LLC. Dear Clerk Hurtubise's, if enclosed for filing, please find the following documents. One, Notice of Appeal of Signed Permit Refusal, number S2400053. memorandum in support of appeal of denial of signed permit S-24-00-053 with supporting exhibits and table of cases and statutes, and three existing site plan. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kathleen A. Desmond, and this is regarding AIM Realty Medford LLC, 42 Fulbright Street, Medford, 02155, and the appeal of signed denial S-24-00-053. And I will recognize the petitioner. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kathy. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then I have a couple of questions of other Councilors. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, other Councilors, then I have a couple of questions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Um, any further discussion second on the motion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions. One, I know that the sales now about two and a half, three years. Have they done any construction at the site.
[Zac Bears]: I'll ask you to unmute. If you could just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And any of those was fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that context. It looks like there's some improvements to the private way as part of the site plan as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Any further questions by members of the Council? It was the motion of Councilors. I mean, my two senses. We could, and no offense Kathy, we could pay lawyers more money to talk about the sign more, but I don't think we're really going to get. It seems to me that we're just changing out the name of the car wash on a sign. And so my, my perspective is that I don't have a problem with that. But we do have a motion by Councilor Scarpelli to table pending for the legal review. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm just saying we could go to KP Law and we could pay them to give us an answer, but that's just my perspective. Okay. The motion by Councilor Scavaglia was to table, I think it was for legal review by the legal, the mayor's legal team, which is KP. Do we wanna adjust that? Do we wanna include the first, just get something from the building department? Sorry, let me just unmute you, George.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, all right. I'll go to Councilor Saint and Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It's just that it doesn't meet the current size of the sign ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we need the law offices particularly but I'm going to go to Kathy in just a second but I've talked to Scott not about this specifically but. I think he's saying because they're saying that it's an expired special permit and not a pre-existing non-conforming use, that because it is a sign that is bigger than the signs allowed by the sign ordinance, he's required to deny it. That's how I'm reading what is presented here.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, I think either we can just go forward or we have to go to the legal, I think that's kind of where we're at. So we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli. to table this and request legal review of the petition, seconded by Councilor Leming, and I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We have the motion and second of Councilor Scarapelli and Councilor Leming to table and refer to legal for review of the petition. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes and is tabled pending your review.
[Zac Bears]: 25040 offered by Vice President Collins resolution in support of the full time lecturers at Tufts University and their fight for a fair contract. Let me get the actual language here. Whereas the 125 full-time lecturers in the School of Arts and Sciences at Tufts have been unionized with SEIU 509 since 2016 and have been bargaining for their third contract since April 2024, seeking a fair contract that allows for both livable salaries and manageable workloads. Whereas FTLs at Tufts create and teach classes, grade exams, advise and mentor students, and perform essential services that keep Tufts running, including, in the case of many FTLs, coordinating academic programs, directing graduate admissions and degrees, and supporting extra and co-curricular activities. And whereas Tufts University prides itself on the high-quality educational experience provided to students, and valuing a quality educational experience means investing in teachers, And whereas lectures working conditions are students learning environments, and whereas the cost of living has increased 21% since 2020, while the average FTL salary has increased only 13.1%, and salaries for FTLs at Tufts ranked 12th out of 13 university among its institutional peers in the integrated post-secondary education data system IPEDS, and Whereas from 2019 to 2023, undergraduate enrollment in the School of Arts and Sciences grew by 12.4%, while full-time faculty growth was only 6.4%, leading to FTLs increasingly being overworked. And whereas Tufts promises a student-faculty ratio of 9 to 1 and an average class size of approximately 20, while in reality, many entry-level courses taught by FTLs have enrollments between 100 and 400 students, in which FTLs often serve as informal and formal advisors. and whereas Tufts University charges undergraduates the highest college tuition in Massachusetts and the fifth highest in the country and reported a $34 million surplus in the School of Arts and Sciences in academic year 2023-2024, and whereas Tufts leadership has continued to offer bargaining proposals that prioritize budget austerity over workers' health and livelihoods and has continued to reject proposals to increase salaries and make modest improvements in the direction of a living wage without adding to the burden of already unmanageable workloads. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support the Tufts University Full-Time Lecturers Union, SEIU 509, and call upon Tufts University to prioritize investing in its teachers because both livable wages and sustainable workloads are essential to workers and to the university more broadly. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any comments from members of the Council at this time? Councilor Scarpelli. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. You provide your name and address for the record at the podium, raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. One second here. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing one in the chamber, not seeing any hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You're on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by folks in the chamber or on Zoom? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Seeing no further comment, I'll just throw in my two cents here. One of the most important lessons in political economy I learned is that we're basically living inside of a 75 year scam to disembed the economy from society. It's this idea that the economy exists outside of any context of humanity or community or sociology or anything else. And certainly we're seeing some of the worst effects of that now. And very often when we talk about Tufts University, it feels like they are trying to disembed themselves from our community. I think Tufts University itself is a community issue. When we talk about the dormitory argument or the many other unions who have come before this council to talk about how Tufts is treating them as an institution, or the students who have come before this council who had those same concerns, or the neighbors, the Medford residents who have serious concerns with how Tufts treats their immediate neighbors in the hillside. Students and workers and Medford residents together have very clear alignment and opposition, in my opinion, to how Tufts is choosing to act as an institution. And I can think of nothing more salient to that point than the idea that we are a host community and not a home. And I think whether you're a student or a worker or a neighbor or just someone who lives here in Medford, we would all do better if Tufts administration did better. So that's where I stand. And I'll probably have to make that speech a couple dozen more times in the next few months, depending, we'll see. But it's just how things go. And it's, you hear these same stories. So thank you for the folks who commented. We do have a motion to approve by Vice President Collins. There is an amendment by Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins, do you accept the amendment? We could also do it as a B paper so that we could keep a clean resolution and have Councilor Scarpelli's item as a separate vote. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. It came in a little funky, but I think we got the picture. You'd prefer a B paper. I'm seeing a nod from Councilor Scarpelli that that's all right. So we'll have two votes. We'll have a B paper, which is to resolve to the mayor to settle the contracts that are outstanding, including some workers who've been without a contract for three years. And when you're ready on that, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The second on the paper. Councilor Tseng, Yes, this is on the beat.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears yes 70 affirmative no negative the motion passes on the a paper which is the original resolution by Vice President Collins seconded by second by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Seven or eight in the affirmative. The motion passes, and we can move to the next item. Thank you. 25.041 offered by Councilor Tseng resolution public engagement plan for FYI 26 budget be it resolved that the resident services and public engagement committee design implement a public engagement plan for the upcoming FYI 2026 budget Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer paper 25041 to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Any discussion by members of the public either in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Second is Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirmative then the negative the motion passes. 25044 offered by Vice President Collins proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance neighborhood and residential, never heard residential and urban residential districts for referral to the Community Development Board. These are the NR and UR proposals referred out of the Planning and Permitting Committee for referral to the Community Development Board for their review and recommendation. And this would amend sections 94-2.1, 94-3.2, 94-4.1, and 94-12 of the zoning ordinance to create these districts. Again, this is just a referral, a legally required referral to the Community Development Board. There is a question and answer session on Thursday in this room on the matter. Community Development Board will hold a public hearing, and then the Council will hold a public hearing where we will hear whatever recommendations were made by the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins, anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussions? Any discussion by members of the public? Either in the chamber or on Zoom, you can come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, I just wanna also thank Vice President Collins, Chair of the Planning and Permitting Committee, No spoilers, but I've heard that the Mass Municipal Association is interested in writing a feature on the zoning updates website page and the engagement process around this. So that has a lot to do with your work, Councilor Collins. So thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative, one of the negatives. The motion passes. I will be brief. If folks have had a chance to review the letter that I wrote up summarizing the decisions that we came up with last week. And if folks have any comments, certainly, or edits, they're much appreciated. But we have first recommendation, maintain level service funding for the Medford public schools and city departments. Two, this is under new ongoing expenditures to increase the funding for the assessing department to implement the residential exemption. Three, increase funding for DPW engineering and facilities departments for improved road and bike safety, tree planting, and capital improvements. Four, fund a therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department and a citywide inclusion specialist. Five, fund a fire department dive team training and equipment. Six, increase funding for the city solicitor position. And then two, one-time expenses. One, or sorry, seven, the nexus studies for inclusionary zoning, linkage fees, and transportation demand management. And eight, planning to update the city's financial software. If folks read that, so that will be sent along along with everyone's individual the recommendations of all the individual Councilors that were submitted by memorandum or by email. What a Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And the letter is addressed to the Mayor with a copy to Chief of Staff Nazarian and Director Dickinson. Any further discussion by members of the Council on our recommendations? Seeing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve and refer to the Mayor by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Is there any discussion by members of the public on the council's budget recommendations for fiscal year 2026? Either the podium or raising your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like Vice President Collins has stepped away.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Communications from the Mayor. 25-047, offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehns, appropriation of free cash and retained earnings. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respect the request that your honorable body approves the appropriations of one, excuse me, free cash in the amount of $737,927.88 on the following items, $680,927.88 for fire station planning. This covers expenses spent under city council resolution 19-484, which used short-term borrowing to start design work. and $57,000 to fund Vision Government Solutions contract to provide revaluation services for the assessor estate mandated 2026 revaluation. The balance of free cash before this vote is $28,343,997. 2. Retained earnings from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund in the amount of $1,700,000.00 for a water main replacement project to mitigate lead or unknown services and improve capacity. The balance in retained earnings in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund before this vote is $12,653,475.00. Finance Director Robert Dickinson and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer any questions respectfully. Submitted Brianne Alengo Kern-Mayer. Bob Owen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director Dickinson, just on the fire station, essentially, my understanding of this is that short-term borrowing was done under a council resolution, and then the idea is that that money would have been rolled over into the debt for the project, but because the debt exclusion failed, there's not gonna be debt for the project?
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any other questions or discussion on this paper? Seeing none, are there any motions? On a motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any discussion by members of the public on this paper? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chambers. Yes. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes, five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. We received a communication regarding McCormick Avenue parcels, and we do have the MWRA loan order eligible for third reading. Both items? Okay. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers 25-020 and 25-028 off the table, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25-020, transfer and conveyance of McCormick Avenue parcels. Give me one second here. So we, I believe, have tabled this requesting further information from the Affordable Housing Trust and the administration. And I have here, to the Honorable President and members of the City Council, from Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund, date March 21, 2025. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on March 5th, 2025, the MAHTF met to discuss and review the resolution offered by the Mayor to the City Council to transfer and convey McCormick Avenue parcels. The MAHTF approved a motion to support the sale and transfer of the McCormick Avenue parcels, F1337 and F1338, subject to the City Council's approval for the purpose of funding the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund to establish an affordable housing linkage through a nexus study and support affordable housing developments. Regarding the McCormick Avenue parcels, the assessor's office is valuing the two parcels individually at $350,000 each. The two parcels individually are undersized lots and not developable. The assessor's office has not factored in this condition, which would lower its assessed value. If the two McCormick Avenue parcels were combined through the doctrine of merger, the land would become developable, and according to the assessor's office, its value would be approximately $435,000. Board of Trustees would be pleased to discuss this matter further. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Lisa Ann Davidson, Chair, Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do want to note when it comes to the free cash, what we heard last week was that there was 1 million in turnbacks, so underspending, and 6 million in unexpected local receipts. And a large amount of that was from exactly what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli, the investment of ARPA funds and city's cash balances in high interest accounts. They earned more than was expected in the budget. And again, that free cash number is as of 6-30-2024. I'm also inclined to say that, Yes, there's a lot of free cash right now and using it on one-time projects is what it's intended for, right? There's two truths. We have an operating budget that has a very tight margin when we look at the budget. And so recurring expenses, especially in an era of inflation and contracts and the compounding effect of the city's biggest expense, which is personnel contracts, that the operating budget can be very tight and we can have little to no money to spend on new recurring expenses. But essentially because of ARPA and the underestimating of some of the local receipts, basically the assumption that the economy will be worse than it ended up being, we did not lose as much money as we thought we would from the pandemic. And that's why we've ended up with the free cash balances that we have. And then because we had those balances and because interest rates were high, we made money on those balances we weren't expecting to make. So that's why we ended up with the balance that we have. I'm inclined to say that, you know, one-time expenses like a study is exactly what the one-time funds from a free cash thing should be used for. I'm also inclined to say that Corbett Avenue is a residential neighborhood where I don't know what you get from leasing the land. And, you know, I don't know how much more benefit you get from leasing the land in the long term and having two or three affordable housing units versus the sale of it for this purpose now. So I'm just going to say that. Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm almost 100% sure that the conveyance of property is a two thirds of majority. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: The letter that we received from the Affordable Housing Trust, I know numbers have been thrown around. Personally, I think we should do all of these nexus studies at once. We should do the linkage, the inclusionary, whatever's needed for TDM and all the other linkage fees, I think we should just do them all.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Councilor Leming then Councilor Tseng and then we do have a DT on on zoom with their hand as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. There is no motion to table unless someone makes it and that motion is undebatable. So if someone makes it, we can't hear from Ms. McGor.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng suggested it. Aditi, we'd love to hear from you with what your thoughts are. Oh, I have to ask you on mute.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. What would we have to do to merge them? Is there a vote of the council required to do that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And it sounds like just it sounds like that probably, whichever way we end up on this, it's probably not going to hurt us to have the parcels be merged or not merged.
[Zac Bears]: I meant to say that if we end up choosing not to sell the parcels, like let's say the ANR process goes forward and they're merged and then the council doesn't want to convey them. That's, it's not really, that's not a problem, is it?
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor, thank you, and I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Give us one second here. We're having a technical issue. Yeah, but I don't know if we're broadcasting anymore, at least to YouTube. Well, let me just make sure we get this fixed. Oh, still going. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I think we're good. Is there a motion on the floor. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to table seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan, any further.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative motions to 5028 loan order MWRA water bonds first reading February 25 2025. Advertised for second reading March 13th, 2025 in the Medford Transcript of the Somerville Journal. Eligible for third reading March 25th, 2025. Is there a motion or any further discussion? This is for the loan order for the MWRA zero interest plus rebate program to replace lines. On the motion to approve for third reading by Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. and the loan order is approved for third reading. Public participation. If anyone would like to participate on anything for three minutes, they can. And I have a hand on Zoom. Eunice Brown, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. We did submit the amended draft to the mayor I think the Thursday the 13th, so two days after the regular meeting, we have not received back anything in writing formally from the mayor about her proposed changes. My understanding certainly is, you know, that did pass this council six to zero with one absent, and the mayor could send it off as amended right now. When we hear back from the mayor about Uh, if she wants to negotiate further, if there are changes, um, that she wants to make, uh, to the amendments that we proposed, we would definitely schedule another meeting to discuss that. Um, but that's the status of it now in terms of what happens in terms of a drop dead date and what happens before an elect a vote on a ballot. Uh, there's technically no drop dead date. Uh, this is all about will the legislature take it up and, uh, you know, it's kind of a black box. They don't have any disclosure or anything. Certainly they could, we could send it to them, you know, the first week in April, they could take it up the second week in April and we could have it done the third week in April, but that really all depends on them taking action. What we know basically from the Collins Center is that both drafts, the draft from the CSC as changed by the mayor and then the draft that from the mayor that we amended that there's nothing in any of those that is outside the scope of what the legislature generally approves for. for charters so we didn't include anything like rank choice voting or budget authority for the council or any of those types of things. We also have been told that the legislature prefers supermajority or near unanimity on homeworld petitions of this matter so it was sent you know our we voted six to zero with one absent in the past when we had sent up home rule petitions to create an elected charter commission. Those have been by votes of four to three. And so the legislature chose not to act on them. In terms of an education campaign, I don't know what the mayor's team would have planned around that or what information would be put forward on the city website, or what private entities, individuals or groups that might form around the ballot questions would do.
[Zac Bears]: That is kind of the reading of the tea leaves that we're trying to match up with. But end of March, early April is kind of what we were told. I think House Ways and Means generally puts out their draft, it's either the week before Patriots Day or the week of Patriots Day. So certainly if we could get it in before then, that might be sufficient. But Collins Center said last week of March, first week of April would be ideal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, when we receive a formal response from the mayor, we'll schedule whatever's needed. Unless of course, that is that she sent the draft that we sent to her to the legislature, in which case there would not need to be any further meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public participation. Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor on the motion of adjourned by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present. President Bears. Present. 7 present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. First matter is the joint rules. Have folks had time to read the joint rules? Are there any comments from members of the Council on the joint rules?
[Zac Bears]: We can do that. Maybe we make it a motion to waive the reading and approve and then we can discuss it. Okay, then we don't have to vote 14 times. All right, so I have a motion and a second on the council. Is there a motion and a second on the school committee?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right, any discussion from members of the council on the joint rules as proposed?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to approve the rules.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirmed and then the negative motion passes the council.
[Zac Bears]: And whatever it is on your agenda, I don't, did you have a number? I know on the school committee version of this. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. We had a meeting last night on recommendations. We're planning to send them over to your office, this council, to the mayor. I know you guys have had a budget process. I'll go to member, well, you should go to member Graham.
[Zac Bears]: What?
[Zac Bears]: I just had one question, Bob. Are you going to go into what the excess local receipts were?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think especially hearing that that's coming from interest on cash on hand or interest on investments, just knowing how much of that 6 million was from interest on cash we don't expect to have in the future. I'm just wondering how that excess local receipts affects our baseline revenue estimates for fiscal 26 essentially.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify, so essentially, The balance was 34 million last at the end of 2020 on 630 23, but we appropriated 14 million so that's a minus 14 million. And then there was a turn back so under spending of a million, and then an unexpected. over overage and local receipts of 6 million and a big portion of that was from interest that we hadn't expected to earn because interest rates were high, right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. sometimes people we didn't have $28 million of new money that was Oh, no, you know, it's a balance. We actually the free cash balance decreased by $6 million. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Member Ruseau just made the point that 8 million of the state assessments is for charter schools. And go ahead Matt, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just had one question on that, Bob. And I think for folks, this is the essentially the riverside development riverside chest done through the brownfields and right complicated thing are the pilot payments, more than what we will end up receiving in taxes from the properties.
[Zac Bears]: So it's a net gain, but it's shifting into new growth.
[Zac Bears]: I can't remember if they actually agreed to it last year or not, but last year there was at least an attempt to have a consensus on the local aid figures before June 30th, even though the final budget hasn't passed. I don't remember if that was just a request that the MMA put out or if they actually managed to do that. Nina's shaking. I can't remember either. that has been something that they've tried to do in the past to give us a little bit more certainty, or that we've at least asked for. And is that you, Erica?
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council at this time? I have a couple. Okay. Bob, the pension applications are based on the actuarial schedule, right? Yes. And that's fully funded in 2033? It's 2033 now. That'll be a good year.
[Zac Bears]: And they're going to come up with some sort of similar program and schedule for that.
[Zac Bears]: So 20, 60, 20.
[Zac Bears]: The ACFRS for fiscal 23 and 24, when will those be available? The 2023 is on the website right now. And 2024, I have to review it tomorrow.
[Zac Bears]: Great. It's the combined financial comprehensive annual comprehensive financial report. Yeah, it's the 100 something page document that, yeah, shows all of the annual audits, how everything was calculated, fund balances. So actually really helpful read to understand everything the city does.
[Zac Bears]: Keeps me up at night, I'll tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: But I just think it's useful for people to know that. that document shows essentially down to the dollar, where the money of the city goes. And it's a level of accounting that most institutions, businesses, and others in this country are not asked to, you know, meet. So, you know, even in the nonprofit industry that I'm in, there's, you know, a 2%. Basically, if it's 2% off, that's pretty much fine, is the general rule. Some organizations choose to go down to the dollar, but cities and towns have to. It has to be independently audited every year. And these reports show exactly where every dollar went. And I just think that's valuable information for people to understand that those are the standards that municipalities are held to and we meet those standards. So thank you for the work on it.
[Zac Bears]: Um, my last, uh, request of a council member if they could just make a motion. Just to request that, um the 25 estimate and the 26 proposed slash estimate motion by councillor Callahan seconded by seconded by councillor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk when you have the motion
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Paris. Yes. I mean for when the negative motion passes. It was just for us. Do you, do you want to, you don't have to.
[Zac Bears]: We'll send it to you. Great. Is that what your mic was on for? Great. Is there anything else that you'd like to share at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, we'll be seeing lots of you the next three months. It's our time to see you every week. Yeah. Almost.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director. I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Graham.
[Zac Bears]: You can motion to not accept the song number on top of it. It doesn't work.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's just the two of us. John, you have to go on video so we can see, you'd be embarrassed. No, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will just say, I'm not there for my birthday because I was in New Orleans. It doesn't sound exactly the way, maybe.
[Zac Bears]: That's your motion.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion by Councilor Lazzaro to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council Committee of the whole meeting, March 18 2025.
[Zac Bears]: Ah, there we go. Thank you. Action and discussion items 25 and Vice President Collins is present. So seven present. 25039 resolution regarding schedule of the annual budget process for fiscal year 2026 be resolved by the Medford city council that the council president requests councilor submit budget recommendations to the clerk by Thursday, March 13th for consideration in a committee of the whole meeting on Tuesday, March 18th at 6pm. That's tonight. be it further resolved that based on the budget ordinance and discussions with the administration, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for fiscal 26. By March 13th, councilors submit individual budget recommendations. March 18th at 6 p.m., committee of the whole meeting to discuss budget recommendations. Tomorrow night, March 19th at 6 p.m., there's a joint meeting of the city council and the school committee in the chambers to receive a financial update and discuss the fiscal 26 budget process. Next Tuesday, March 25 2025 assuming we report out recommendations tonight, the city council will have a collective recommendation to send to the mayor. Last year we also sent everyone's individual recommendations so all of that will be included. From April 15th to May 21st, the council would hold preliminary budget meetings with department heads. And by Friday, May 31st, the mayor would submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the city council. And then there's a list of the draft schedule of the meetings from April 15th to May 21st. Those are Tuesday, April 15th, Tuesday, April 29th, Wednesday, April 30th, Tuesday, May 13th, Tuesday, May 20th, and Wednesday, May 21st. and we have budget recommendations from everybody except for me. So we will move through that. Just a quick overview. Essentially what we did last year is individual councilors discussed their budget proposals, and then we, the councilors made a motion to include some of them in a joint proposal that came from the council as a body as a whole, and then we submitted that joint recommendation, collective recommendation, as well as the individual recommendations from individual Councilors. So I think that can basically be our process again. If anyone else wants to make a motion to do it differently, I think that's totally fine. And we can go around, if folks wanna signal in or raise their hands on Zoom and share what their recommendations are for the budget for fiscal 26. I see Councilor Leming and I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Anyone want to go next? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, and I will make sure that your list is included in the packet that goes out after the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Tsengh, and then Councilor Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little quiet. Shane, do you think you could turn up the Zoom audio a little bit? Oh, I can do that. Thanks for showing me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. Do we have any more discussion? Do folks wanna talk about any of the items? I've been trying to keep a list here of the things where I heard multiple Councilors raise the same items. So I'm happy to go over that, but I wanna go back to other Councilors first, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. My list might've been a little bit shorter. I definitely had the therapeutic, and I'm gonna say who specifically mentioned them mainly in their written documents, or if they spoke them out loud, it doesn't mean we don't all support these things. But I heard the therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department, and that was Councilors, Leming, Scarpelli, Collins, and Sang all mentioned that. with an estimated cost of 125,000. There was the increase in funding for DPW and engineering, including a focus on the Bicycle Commission recommendations. You know, Councilor Scarpelli mentioned the funding for DPW staff and Councilors Lazzaro, Sang and Collins mentioned funding for the Bicycle Commission recommendations and Councilor Callahan recommended an additional staff position in the DPW. So that was, um, five folks mentioned that. Department, um, increasing funding for the city solicitor position. We had Councilor Scarpelli Collins and saying Councilor Collins provided an estimate of $36,000. We had the fire department dive team, uh, from Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Collins also mentioned it in her, uh, comments and that's $122,900. 33 or 93, one of those numbers. And then there was a general, kind of two more general items. One was maintaining funding at level service and level staff levels for the schools, the library, community liaisons, translation services, rodent prevention, and grant funded positions. And that was Councilor Collins and Tseng. And then there was also updating the city's financial software, which was Councilors Collins and saying, and then I think everything else was, um, folks, individual, um, recommendations. Does that sound right? Did I, did anyone advocate for something that, um, advocate for one of those things that I didn't mention your name or hear something else mentioned where there were at least two Councilors who were advocating for it? All right. Now, I'm happy to take these recommendations from this meeting and put together a document to go on the agenda for next week's meeting that's kind of a collective summary of those top six priorities. And then if councilors, you know, either want to stick with the letter or document that they send in, or if they want to write something up that can go in a packet that will go to the mayor about their specific priorities, we can include that as well for next week's regular meeting and send that along to the mayor. Obviously everyone has to vote for it, but that would be the, I think the next steps here. Any discussion? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to take these six recommendations and I will put together a memo and then we can change the wording at the regular meeting next week. Anyone can submit any changes and thoughts around it. And then also if folks wanna submit or resubmit or change or amend their initial letters and submit those for the packet as well, that's acceptable. I'll go over the six again, but I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro first.
[Zac Bears]: If you'd like to amend anything that you submitted, you can send it to the clerk and that would be great. And then we'll attach that all to the agenda item. And if you don't, I'll just attach whatever you already sent. So the six items were funding a therapeutic recreation specialist and office manager in the recreation department, increasing funding for the DPW and engineering, including around the bicycle commission priorities, increasing funding for the city solicitor, funding a fire department dive team, maintaining funding and level service and staffing, I'm gonna say that's a general principle and then I'll also list the specifics. I don't think any of us, I think we all, is it fair to say we all support that there's a level of service and staffing in every department? Or I'm seeing a thumbs up from Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think level service, just from my one perspective, you know, you can make arguments that you can provide the same services moving things around. There's also the two and a half plus, I mean, we don't know what the revenue estimate is yet, so that's another piece of, we're starting kind of here, and then we'll hear what the budget discussions are, but I do see Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks I'll go to Councilor Callahan and Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I did have, I had under DPW, I had a couple items around the capital plan and increasing capital spending that I was gonna try to figure out how to word. I didn't have the nexus study. I will say we did receive, or I received an email. I'm not sure if we all did. about the McCormick Avenue parcels as relates to funding the NEXUS study today, earlier today. I only had it coming from you, Matt. So I only included things that had at least two people on it, but if anyone else also mentioned the NEXUS study and I missed it, I can include that.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's linkage fees and inclusionary, but Matt, you can explain it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Council Member. I go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And Matt, just so I'm understanding it here, and it sounds like I was understanding it wrong. I thought we had to do one study that was going to help us price out affordable housing, like inclusionary zoning. link all the linkage fees and maybe even TDM, but it sounds like those are three separate studies or at least no, I'm kind of Yeah, it's I've had a lot of discussions with planning about this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great. And it sounds like maybe we need to get all of the heads in a meeting at some point. I'm going to put this in, Councilor Callahan put their name behind it. But also it sounds like we need to get all the heads in the room around the specific studies. We need to update these specific buckets and make sure that we fund all of them. I think it'd be great to use, to do that as soon as possible. So I'll put that in and I'll wordsmith that. Is there anything, so I had the maintaining the level service. And the specific list was for the schools, library, community liaisons, translation services, road and control, and grant funded positions in the planning and health departments. And then we had updates to the city's financial software that that should be a priority. I've added in the nexus study for the linkage, all the linkage fee categories. And I'm just including affordable housing and inclusionary zoning in there as well. Is there, so those are the seven and we had a vice president Collins motion. I did want to put one other thing out there. I know I didn't submit a memo. You know, we discussed and I believe we passed a B paper about the need for funding for the residential exemption. and that that needed to be funded at budget time in order for the assessing department to have the capacity to move us towards having a residential exemption. And I believe we voted seven to zero to try to do that this year. So I just wanted to put that out there. I think that's a, you know, the budget is a piece of that, a big piece of that project, getting a residential exemption, getting the city in a position where if the council were to vote for a residential exemption in December, there's enough capacity to actually implement that. So, and that's basically been what the justification has been the whole time is if we don't have that We haven't done the prep work, so we can't vote it. And I know we voted, I think it was Councilor Scarpelli's B paper around, we need that, we wanna do that this year. So I'll go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so I will include that as well. I believe Ted mentioned, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, this will be the eighth item. Ted mentioned two staff positions, so I will work around that initial discussion as I work up this memo for next week. All right, any further discussions? Seeing none on the motion of vice president Collins a seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Any further discussion on the budget process or recommendations before we adjourn?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there's a joint session council and school committee tomorrow at six in the chamber, and we should be getting a presentation from the finance department.
[Zac Bears]: Great, absolutely. And I think a few Councilors will be on zoom as well. So, Vice President Collins at least.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn. Council is our to adjourn seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'll be brief. And I'll just say that I think especially for Medford Square and West Medford Square, trying to look at a little bit more density, I think, is important. So just I'll leave it there for now. I appreciate the framework discussion. I think it's a really helpful overview. And I have some questions about Harvard Street in South Medford as well. maybe a little bit of other questions about the main street and medford street quarters but i'll leave that for future meetings thank you great thank you president bears go next to councilor Leming thank you uh first just uh
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. Just a couple things. I think one, when we talk about lot size I think we need to be also thinking about Like, for example, in West Medford, the lots that are basically small industrial buildings between Canal Street and the train tracks and High Street, right? Like, those lots, as they exist today, maybe couldn't bear something that they could bear if one or two were combined. And so I don't want to limit the zoning based on assuming that lots are going to stay the way that they are. And just two other things. I think it might be valuable to put like a thick black line or some other demarcation to Vice President Collins's point around the zones that have already been approved versus the ones where we're discussing them going forward, just so that folks can see what has been done already and what needs to be done. And then just third, I think there's, as part of this, I think, and I've mentioned this before to folks, but I just want to bring it up here. I think there's some value to thinking about a UR3 district that would be a four-story by right, and I can't think of a better name for it than to say an MX2.5 district that's somewhere between the MX2 and the MX3 district in terms of intensity and density. just because I think we're now getting into the place where there are parts of the city, especially in Medford Square and along Main Street, and in West Medford Square to an extent where we just need a tool that's a little bit more dense than the MX-2, but not quite the MX-3. And I think that there's probably value to a residential only four story structure in some parts of these corridors where it wouldn't be applicable in a neighborhood. So just want to put that out there as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, I think for me, certainly as to question one, by right for detached in any residential district and by right for attached or detached in the NR districts or for anything other than a multiplex, I think makes a lot of sense. For question two, I'd like to see that go up to 1,000 or 1,100. I think that's a more reasonable size of a single, relatively small apartment unit. For three, personally, I would just only be interested in seeing two ADUs on the same lot if it was, if there was an attached ADU and then there was a detached ADU to preserve a historic structure or an accessory structure. I don't really see the need for multiple ADUs on the same lot. And then for four, I personally would not want to allow ADUs to be short-term rented. I think the short-term rental has been a really tough impact on the housing market and it's just not the way to to move on that. I don't think we want to see people building a lot of these units for short-term rental purposes. I think we want to see them building them to make sure that people can live here year-round. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins for reading this resolution. I lost a friend who's very close to me. A lot of people in this city are very sad that he passed away. It's obviously hard to talk about. I'm not going to speak too much about it because I think we're going to be here for a few hours and I want to be able to run this meeting. But I appreciate all the support that people have said over the past week, and my thoughts are with his family and our Medford High School class of 2011, who is missing him very much. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All opposed motion passes to 4033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee February 26 2025 report to follow.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor, I oppose the motion passes to 4468 offered by Councilor Tseng committee of the whole March 4 2025 report to follow I guess technically this should be me but I'll go to you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. On the motion to approve the committee report by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Now to Councilor Leming. 24069, 24073, 24354, offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, March 5th, 2025. I can't, I don't know if there's something going on, but this is Councilor Leming, March 5th, 2025, Resident Services and Public Engagement, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councils are to take paper to 5043 out of order seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I opposed motion passes to 4053 petition for amendment to a common victors license by Mrs. Murphy's. Excuse me, Mrs. Murphy's is requesting Barry Rafferty writing seeking to extend business hours to 1am. As you're aware liquor license already allows for that and it's crucial for my business, we find ourselves particularly on Chevalier nights asking our customers to vacate the premises. and it is upsetting for all parties. Thank you for your consideration, best, Barry Rafferty. And I also note for the discussion from the clerk is that there's especially a desire for them to be open late on St. Patrick's Day. This is their first St. Patrick's Day open in Medford Square. So I'll go to Barry, who I now see is here. If he wants to share anything, yes, if you don't mind. If he wants to share anything more, and then I can talk a little bit about where we are procedurally with all of this.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So I will note that the clerk's office and the planning office have reviewed the city's zoning and special permits for extended hours for restaurants are not for our zoning. All we need to do here is amend common victors licenses. In terms of doing that going forward, the clerk's office and the planning department are working to develop a set of paperwork for that. It's not done yet. So that's why we're, we have this email from you right here. I know you've filled out a ton of forms for the city and wouldn't have minded filling out one more, but that's why this is presented the way it's being presented right now. So with that, I will turn it over to councillors for discussion. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Councilor Lazzaro has moved to approve the amendment to the common mixers license to extend the hours to 1 a.m. I got a second from Councilor Tseng. Would you like to speak on it? Okay. Everyone wants a second. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion to approve? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? If you want to say anything else, Barry, or if there's anyone else who'd like to say anything, you can either make a line behind the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. None from Barry. He said his piece. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on this vote? We got one. Okay. We've got some people in favor. Thank you. Nice to start on something I think we can seemingly all agree on. I think no hands on zoom. So, no further discussion by members of the council on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No hearings public hearing notice Medford Community Development Board January 22 2025. City Council February 11 2025 chapter 94 zoning the Medford Community Development Board shall conduct a hearing on January 22 2025 after 630pm. via zoom remote video conferencing relative to the following proposed amendments to the city of menford zoning ordinance and zoning map one amend section 94 dash 2.1 division into districts to add Salem Street corridor district to amend section 94 dash 6.0 general regulations to insert a new subsection to create the new green score zoning regulation and to state the applicability standards and calculation methodology therein. Three, amend section 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations table a by incorporating the Salem Street quarter district into the existing table, and to designate the uses permitted there in for amend section 94 dash 4.1 table of dimensional requirements table be by incorporating the Salem Street quarter district and to state the dimensional requirements therein. Five, amend section 94-12 definitions to amend and add various definitions. Six, amend section 94-9.0 to insert a new subject section to create the Salem Street Corridor District. Seven, amending the zoning map to create a new Salem Street Corridor District and to change the zoning district designation of various properties to place them within said district as shown on map entitled quote, Salem Street Corridor Zoning dated December 8th, 2024. Eight, amend section 94-11.7 site plan review to incorporate the green score regulation by adding submission requirements for site plan review and modifications and establish a waiver process. Zoom link to the meeting is also posted on the city website calendar. A subsequent public hearing will be held on the same matter by the Medford City Council on February 11th, 2025 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom, a link to the public hearing to be posted no later than November 29th, 2024. So that is the original notice. The Community Development Board held a public hearing across three meetings on this matter in January, February, and March. The City Council opened its public hearing February 11 2025 and continue to this meeting, March 11 2025. We have two papers before us tonight, paper 24515 and 24499. The first is 515 on the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district and 499 on the green score. There are also the proposed amended text of both items in the council's packet and attached on the council's meeting and agenda portal. How I'm going to do this is I'm going to open the public hearing on each item. Well, I'm gonna open the public hearing. We'll hear first on Salem Street, and then we'll hear from councillors from the public. There'll be motions made, and we'll take a vote on that, and I will close the public hearing portion of the public hearing on Salem Street, and then we'll move to the portion of the public hearing on the green score. and follow the same process. So with that, I'm going to reopen the public hearing and recognize Vice President Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Chair recognizes Emily Innis, Innes Associates.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. That's some great information, Vice President Collins and Planner Ennis. With that, I will go to members of the council for comments or questions, please. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing on the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District. I'm going to go through a little bit of how this is going to work. So we are going to talk about the Salem Street Neighborhood Corridor District. Each person speaking will have three minutes to speak. If you're in the room and you'd like to speak, you can make a line behind the podium. If you'd like to bring a chair out, if that is helpful for you, that's absolutely fine. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hand. If you are on Zoom and you would like to speak, I please ask you to rename yourself to a first and last name. We have had issues in the past with people whose names were not listed on Zoom not being real people and causing us a little trouble. So if you could please rename yourselves. I'm going to turn that power on right now. if you'd like to speak, but yes. So we'll move to public comment. It'll be three minutes. There'll be a timer. I will give you a 30 second warning and we will hear from everyone once before we hear from anyone again. If you were speaking a second time, you'll be able to speak for one minute. So with that, if you'd like to speak, please make a line at the podium and we'll get started. And this is for people in favor, against, or who have a more complicated position on the issue. I will also note that we received a large number of email comments today. I'm asking the clerk to include those as part of the record, which he will do. Only two of those email comments actually requested that I read those comments. And one of them messaged me that they're here tonight and they'll just be speaking to them. So I will read one comment into the record sometime, maybe when we need a break. With that, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Alex on Zoom. Alex, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes. And then iPad on Zoom, if you could please rename yourself to give us your name. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. Here you go. You should be able to now. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: His address is 30 Right Ave in Medford. Thank you. Continue. Thanks. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to Miranda on Zoom. Miranda, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just very quickly on that, on the 3A, we passed the zoning in 2023 on the 3A zoning. Just wanted to note that. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Sneha on Zoom. Sneha, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Zachary Chertok. Zachary, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to zoom. I'm going to go to Caitlin Robinson, Caitlin name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to say before we go back to Zoom, we haven't had a chance to hear from you, Mr. Fenton, but I personally want to say I appreciate you do some great posting on Facebook of the history of Medford, photos of Medford, and I, for one, just really appreciate it. Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. I have, yep, I have Michael von Korf. Name and address for the record. Michael, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I go back to the podium just if Rebecca and iPad if you could please rename yourselves, so that to a first and last name I'll recognize you once you do that. But we'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record please and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go back to Zoom. Rebecca Davidson, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to your point, I'm not aware of, certainly not as part of this process studies of the kind that you're, exactly what you're talking about have not been done for South Medford or West Medford that have not been done for Salem Street. That has not happened. There have been studies that have been done throughout this process through the comprehensive plan process by the consultant. And I think the general consensus and what Councilor Collins said is we could say, if everything that could possibly be built under this zoning were to exist, what would the conditions look like? But that would not be an accurate representation of what's actually going to happen. I'm sorry, that's the buzzer, because you had a little extra time left. And when we talk about the studies that happen when specific projects are put forward, Those are done, yes, the person who pays for them is the person the proponent of the project, but they are reviewed by the city staff and the city's boards and commissions that review those applications so there is a public element of that process as well city experts and the city's boards and commissions.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, but it will happen on a project by project basis.
[Zac Bears]: On all of the notifications, a site plan review process or a special permit, there are state laws that govern that, direct abutters are notified, but also all of those projects appear on, it's direct abutters and abutters within a certain radius, but also all of those projects appear on a public agenda, either of the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Community Development Board, and very occasionally of this body.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. I'll go to Benjamin on Zoom. Benjamin, name and address for the record and iPad, if you could please rename yourself.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Oh, sorry, Ken, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go back to Zoom. Go to Jared Nussbaum, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. iPad, once again, if you'd like to speak, email me your name, change your name. Otherwise, I'm not gonna recognize you, but we're gonna go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to William Clark on Zoom. William, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Rebecca on Zoom. Rebecca, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. You're on. Rebecca, we can't hear you, but you are unmuted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom. I'm going to go to Cynthia Estramera. Cynthia, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Anna Gunning on Zoom. Ada, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to take us back to Zoom. Once again, I'm going to ask IPAD and JMN, please rename yourselves with your first and last name if you want to be recognized. We'll go to Andrew McRobert. Andrew, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Before I go back to Zoom, Once again, iPad and D Silva, please rename yourselves with a thank you. Donna, iPad, if you could please rename yourself with a first and last name to be recognized. I'm going to go to Martha Andrus. Martha, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Nathan Kando. Nathan, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll return to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Donna Silva. Donna, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Donna, I've requested that you unmute yourself. You should see a button on your screen that says unmute. All right, Donna, we'll come back to you. I'm gonna go to Jennifer O'Callaghan. Jennifer, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please, please take your comments outside. If you're gonna comment, there's been a lot of conversation and everyone's gonna be respectful and I'll give you another 15 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We've had a good night, y'all. We've had a good night. And I just want us to try to respect everybody who comments. We've had claps at the end, depending on who we support, that's fine. Please just keep the rest of the disruptions to a minimum so that we can hear from everyone in an equitable manner. And I appreciate. your respect for the process and for civic engagement. I'm going to go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Jean Mizzo in one second, but iPad and Janine's iPad, please rename yourselves to a first and last name to be recognized on Zoom. Jean, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go in a second to Megan on Zoom, but if iPad and Eunice could just rename themselves to a first and last name to be recognized. Megan, name and address for the record. Megan, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So you have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cheryl. We'll go to Zoom, go to Janine. Janine, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Janine, I've hit the ask to unmute button. If you could hit the unmute button. All right, we'll come back to Janine. I'm gonna try Donna Silva again. Donna, I'm going to ask you to unmute. Hi Donna you have three minutes, name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can. Oh, we could for a second but then you muted. We can hear, we can hear you now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do want to note that this is part of a citywide rezoning, we are looking at Medford Square and West Medford and every part of the city. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'll answer when you're done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Councilor Collins can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe this is a $100,000 contract over 18 months for NS Associates. Go to the podium. Actually, I gotta go to Zoom, sorry. I'm gonna go to iPad who has hopefully emailed me that they are Pat Hanson. So thank you, Pat. I'm asking you to unmute. If you could click the unmute button. Pat Hanson, iPad on Zoom. All right, Pat, we'll come back to you. I'm gonna go to Janine Senkabaugh. Janine, name and address for the record, please. I've asked you to unmute and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just wanted... Just wanted to note that we had a meeting at six o'clock today, specifically on the traffic and safety issue. We focused on the Salem Street Rotary, and we received an update from our traffic and transportation director, as well as I read out an update from MassDOT about their plans for construction this season to address safety concerns at the Salem Street Rotary. So you can go back and watch that on YouTube right now, or on Medford Community Media in a day or two. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes and then we'll come back to you, Pat Hanson.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go back to Zoom. I'm gonna go to Pat Hanson. Pat, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, if you can just shut off your other device. Thank you. Oh, yeah, you're gonna you're gonna need to mute your other computer or TV.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, the echo is still there. I may have spoken too soon. If you have another computer or a TV that's putting out sound, that's the issue.
[Zac Bears]: Is that clear? That sounds good. I'll give you three minutes starting now. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilors will speak once the public comment period has concluded. You have two minutes if you'd like to say anything else.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate your working with me to make sure you can speak. Thank you. All right, I'm going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. I'm going to go to Teresa Marzilli on Zoom. Teresa, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You go to the podium name and address the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Zoom, Jessica Parks. Jessica, name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Gary Marinelli on Zoom. Gary, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Gary? Gary, you're unmuted, but we can't hear you. I'm going to try to ask you to unmute again. Gary, if you could speak now, you are unmuted. All right, Gary, it seems like you're having a technical issue, so we'll come back to you. I will go to Jessica Healy on Zoom. Jessica, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. I'm gonna try Gary again, Gary Marinelli. Gary, I'm gonna ask you to unmute and we'll try again. If you say something into your microphone, Sorry, Gary, for some reason your microphone's not working. I apologize. I'm gonna go to Eunice, Eunice Brown on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Gary, we're going to try again. Gary Marinelli, we're going to try you once more. I'm requesting you to unmute. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now, Gary. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Someone has a phone going off. Could you please just take it outside? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gary.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to zoom out to go to Ren Bean Ren name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And if folks could please take their conversations outside. One second, Barry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go back to Zoom. Going to Zoom. I've carried Denny on Zoom. Carrie, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. to go to zoom I have Donna Messina on zoom Donna name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to Sue Brown on Zoom, the last hand on Zoom. Sue, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's another hand on Zoom, but we'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go back to Zoom. Harrison Green, name and address for the record please. Harrison.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, I think we're in person from here on out. Of course, someone can always raise their hand and prove me wrong but name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium, name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds and I'm sorry to hear that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds, Nate.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's on our agenda for a couple months. That's our agenda, so yeah. This is happening in every part of the city.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: There were several people who were given the address of Salem Street.
[Zac Bears]: There's Lambert Street, Garfield Street, Farragut Avenue, Vine Street, Everett Street, Almont Street. I can continue to name the streets if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: So, Washington Street.
[Zac Bears]: That's a complicated question.
[Zac Bears]: Well, let's just have you finish it up.
[Zac Bears]: And as regards Mystic Avenue, I'd recommend folks go to medfordma.org slash zoning. You can see the zoning we passed for Mystic Avenue. Andy described it pretty well. It's a first floor commercial and then up to, I believe, 10 stories with four more incentive stories up to 14. So it's a pretty intense proposal for Mystic Avenue. We'll go to the podium and then back to Zoom and then the podium again. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to Zoom. I'm going to go to James Torres. James, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And before I come back to you, we haven't had anyone speak for a second time yet. Is there anyone else in person or on zoom who would like to speak for the first time? Please raise your hand now. All right, seeing none, we'll go to the podium for one minute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go for a second time to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. They've been addressed record of one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Lisa Serio. Lisa, you haven't spoken yet. Name and address for the record, please, Lisa. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go back to the Zoom. Carrie, you'll have one minute. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Carrie. Name and address for the record you have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dave. All right, I got two emails to specifically requested that I read them into the record and then I'm going to declare this portion of the public hearing closed. We have Tina LaVoy, dear President Bears, I'm emailing you with my opposition of the current new zoning on Salem Street. I apologize, I'm having issue with my Zoom. I wanted to email you with my opposition. My name is Tina LaVoy, 128 Sheridan Ave, Medford. Thank you. Then I had Nick Ulig. Hello, Councilors. In advance of tonight's Council meeting, which I will unfortunately not be able to attend, I wanted to voice my very strong support for the Salem Street zoning proposal. I'd like to request that Councilor Bears reads these comments into the record if possible. I moved to Medford last year and I live in the Salem Street corridor just a block away on Tainter Street. My family chose Medford for its schools, parks, friendly neighborhoods, and good mix of urban forms. We love the lively character of Medford Square and High Street, but also the quieter tree-lined streets in historic districts. We want to see Medford continue to develop while maintaining its unique charm, and this means incremental densification on streets just like Salem. We moved here from a city which, while very dense, is experiencing its own housing crisis, Toronto, Ontario. That city has been plagued for years by setbacks, resistance, foot-dragging, and political whiplash concerning building new housing and transit. It is finally making progress on this front, and I want to see our new home of Medford avoid the decades of delays caused by this irrational resistance to change. I encourage Medford City Council to act boldly and say yes to more density today, not 20 years from now. Some things I want to highlight. One, Salem Street is perfectly positioned to add density to coincide with its improved transit corridor as part of the MBTA Better Bus Program and the changes to Routes 101 and 96. Reduced parking, greater density, and more variety in the mix of homes and businesses on the street is what we need. Two, the CD board's disappointing attempt to water down the proposal by removing the density node at Park Street is unnecessary. The MX2 zoning should be restored for this node. One visible reason is the unsightly open pit that has been present there for a long time. The more options available to develop that land, the better and the faster it will get done. The same goes for adjacent lots as they come up for redevelopment in the future. Artificially restricting density is not the way to address housing needs or the desire for a vibrant and walkable community. the community development board went too far in scaling back this proposal and the original proposal for mx2 zoning for the park street node should be approved three In parallel with the proposed rezoning, the Council must enable these rezoning initiatives to succeed by removing parking minimums citywide. A previous hometown of mine, Edmonton, Alberta, a notoriously car-dependent city, boldly removed not only all exclusionary single-family district zoning, but also all parking minimums several years ago to enable its goal of pushing infill development and avoiding further urban sprawl. These two measures have fundamentally changed the development patterns of the city for the better. This is exactly what we need to do in Medford. Parking minimums are an outdated policy measure that encourage unsustainable development and get in the way of building the housing we need. My thanks for the hard work you do to make Medford the best it can be. I look forward to more neighbors, more vibrancy, and more things that make Medford a great place to live. Enthusiastically, Nicholas Ullig, 62 Taylor Street, Medford, MA 02155. With that, I'm declaring this portion of the public hearing closed. I'm going to now recognize Council Vice President Collins, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Leming and then Councilor Sanders.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to amend the proposal to revert the Salem and Park intersection from MX1 back to the MX2 in the original proposal by Councilor Leming. Is there a second on that amendment? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll take a vote on that and then we'll take a vote on the proposal as amended, but I do want to go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion by members of the Council? PB, Harmon Zuckerman, he or her. into the comprehensive plan and these iterations of our zoning recodification. This is the process. This is the public process. This is what representative government looks like. And we have a product before us that is the culmination of that process. So I just want to thank everybody again for their participation. We had over 70 people speak tonight. And that's in addition to dozens of public comments by email and all of the previous comments at Community Development Board hearings, City Council meetings, City Council Committee meetings. And that's just the part of this process we've just been doing for the past 13 months, never mind the two years of the comprehensive plan and the two years of zoning recodification we did before that. When we talk about how long have we been talking about this? A long time. We talked about how extensive the process was. The answer is unequivocally extensive, and that's how we got to where we are. There's a motion on the floor from Councilor Leming to amend. Essentially, I believe there's a motion to adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board and approve the zoning ordinance except for the recommendation to shift from MX2 to MX1. So I think it's important to note the current proposal is still MX2. If we accepted the recommendations of the Community Development Board, it would go to MX1. So technically how we need to word this is that we're accepting all of the recommendations except for the recommendation to go to MX1 at Park Street and Salem Street. Now we could vote on the amendment. and then vote on the final motion. It looks like Council Member has a question.
[Zac Bears]: So it's not back and that's the important thing to recognize here. We would be essentially you're saying, we'll do it this way. You're voting we're voting not to adopt the recommendation to move from MX two to MX one at Park Street and Salem Street. And then we will vote yes to approve the zoning ordinance with all of the other recommendations from the Community Development Board. So we'll take two votes. A yes vote on the first will be to keep MX2 at Parkin Salem. And then a yes vote on the second vote will be to adopt all of the other recommendations except for the shift from MX2 to MX1 and to approve the zoning ordinance. Does that make sense to everybody? All right. So the first vote is to not adopt the recommendation of the Community Development Board to go from MX2 zoning to MX1 zoning at Salem Street and Park Street. So that's a yes vote, keeps MX2. I see Vice President Collins. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative no negative the motion passes. On the motion by Councilor Leming to adopt the remainder of the Community Development Board's recommendations and approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. This is to adopt all of the other recommendations and approve. The second is Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none in the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Nope, we're not done. Green score. So we still have to consider green score as part of this public hearing. I'm going to go to Council Vice President Collins to present on the green score element, and then I will reopen the public hearing on the green score. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to, the public hearing remains open. I'm opening it back up on the green score question. If you'd like to speak in favor or in opposition or in any other way about the green score proposal, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. There's no hands on zoom. So we'll stay at the podium. Maybe the rest of the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I don't know, Vice President Collins, if you have anything on that. I know that this was based on the similar green score systems in Somerville and Cambridge, but I don't know if you have more.
[Zac Bears]: I do think the short answer is try to raise funds to do the nexus study, which will be around linkage, fee changes, inclusionary housing, and would also include the impact of this. So we're establishing the program. I think this is a best initial draft, but the nexus study piece is what's going to be needed to update inclusionary and linkage. And I could see it being applicable to this topic as well in terms of fine tuning. all of those programs and systems based on what the study says the market can bear in terms of costs.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, 30.
[Zac Bears]: This is if the landscape elements in table, if following conditions presented in table 5.1, it should say 5.3.
[Zac Bears]: As a bonus credit, got it.
[Zac Bears]: Line two, flooding to surrounding area and help. It says help. Got it. Thank you. That's it. No problem. Thank you. You definitely read it. Fantastic. Is there any other comment on this item as part of the public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: Kevin, are we transmitting? All right.
[Zac Bears]: For TV? For Medford Community Media?
[Zac Bears]: Kevin, Committee of the Whole on Channel 22? Okay. It did start late, started about 10 minutes late. This meeting also started about 10 minutes late. Can someone just go on YouTube and tell me if the file's there under the streaming? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you just we did check in on the stream stream has been up on YouTube for four and a half hours for this meeting, the committee, the whole is available if you go to city of Medford mass YouTube and you go to the live tab it's there. Our video tech and obviously if you're watching this you're you're experiencing this in real time. But our video tech, not just video tech, our MCM director, Kevin, says that it has been going out on the channels as well, and also a recording will be uploaded.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kevin. And if you're still with us, the daily numbers were three, six. All right, any further comment on the public hearing? Council Vice President Collins. All right, then I'm going to close the public hearing seeing no hands and no one at the podium. The public hearing on this portion is closed for the green score. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve this zoning ordinance amendment with the recommendations of the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to paper 25042 out of order by Vice President Collins. Seconded by? seconded by councilor Leming all those in favor oppose motion passes 2, 5, 0, 4, 2, submitted by interim superintendent Suzanne Galusi, Metropolitan Public Schools, Massachusetts School Building Authority, accelerated repair statements of interest for roof and HVAC systems at the Roberts, Missittuck, and Brooks Elementary Schools. We have with us the assistant superintendent, Peter Cushing, who will still be ready for our school day tomorrow to present on this item. I also do have a memorandum, which I can attempt to read and summarize quickly, which is to say that the city of Medford and Medford Public Schools completed five school building projects between 2001 and 2003 phase one the Andrews and McGlynn complex phase two the Brooks, Mississippi and Roberts elementary schools. While these are the new schools they are 25 years old. We have moved forward on refurbishing the roof and HVAC systems at the phase one Andrews and McGlynn complex. And now the MSBA has opened a short window of the accelerated repair statement of interest period for our school districts to submit projects focused on things like deferred maintenance. And that is somewhere that we're looking at for the I'm going to turn it over to Assistant Superintendent Cushing at this time because he can speak to all of this better than I can and can probably summarize this memorandum better than I can.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Superintendent. We do have questions from a few council members. I just wanted to ask you one myself. Essentially, this is a program where the MSBA will pay for some portion, if we are accepted on our statement of interest, and if we are approved, the MSBA will pay for a portion of the costs to replace the roof and the HVAC at the elementary schools. And we are already undergoing that process for the K through eight McGlynn and Andrews middle school and had no idea that this process was potentially going to reopen at the time that we were moving forward on that, and that the conditions are worse at those schools than the elementary schools.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I assume house doctor is a term of art, Superintendent Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: So these are people who are essentially on, potentially on retainer. There are three firms that do assessments of facility conditions and let us know their recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Great. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of, we're gonna have to take three votes. but I'll go to Vice President. There's a motion to approve. We'll take three votes separately, one on each school by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Any discussion on this by members of the public? Seeing none, anything further you'd like to say, Superintendent Cushing?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. On the motion of Council is our second and by Councilor Tseng to approve for the Brooks school. Mr. please call the roll Council Kelly. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, none of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Is there a motion to approve for the Missituk Elementary School? So moved. On the motion by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for Missituk Elementary School. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One absent, the motion passes. It's a motion to approve for Roberts Elementary School. A motion of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan to approve for the Roberts School. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes is approved. Thank you, Superintendent cushion. Thank you very much. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24468, offered by Councilor Tseng. Draft city charter is amended by the committee of the whole. The draft city charter proposal is amended by the city council and committee of the whole after the governance committees can review processes attached. If approved by the council, the draft will be submitted to the mayor for her consideration for submission to the legislature. If approved by the legislature, the voters of the city of Medford will approve or deny the draft charter on the November 4th, 2025 municipal election ballot. This is our final meeting, at least of the process so far on the draft city charter. We have held several meetings in the governance committee as well as a meeting committee of the whole to discuss amendments to the city charter. Essentially, the main principles of the charter are what they were coming in, which is maintaining a strong mayor-weak council form of government with a slight shift of some power from the mayor to the council. This creates a charter that is a special act charter, not an adoption of different sections of state law, so essentially a charter that is a coherent document that is easily accessible and readable by the voters. This shifts from an all at large council to a hybrid of at large seats and local district seats. And it shifts some that essentially reduces the mayor's role on the school committee by not requiring the mayor to be the chair. But in general, it does shift some power away from the mayor in regards to the school committee. And with that, I will turn it over to Councilor Tseng, who is the chair of the Governance Committee, who has shepherded this through the process so far and can provide additional summary.
[Zac Bears]: Great, so there's a motion on the floor to approve this draft as amended by Councilor Tseng to strike section 45B1 and renumber the following two sections as one and two. All right, on that motion seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. The motion is the whole thing. So right now, the motion is to adopt everything. Beautiful. Yes. So you're good. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chancellor Callahan. And I really encourage folks to read the blog post. I read it earlier, so I felt comfortable stepping out for my first break in five hours, only because I had read what I thought you were going to say, and I think you said most of it. And I just wanted to say that I think the point especially about the fact that if you're in a 51-49 race and 51% wins and 49% loses, half of people feel pretty bad about that and don't feel represented. And you know, given the special act process that we're in, we can't look at models that really do address that more seriously. Um, but we can have a balance of having this winner take all single member district seats and having, um, the at large seats. So thank you, councilor Leming. And then Councilor Tseng, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I thought my microphone was on. Okay, I think I understand where we're at here with the definitions. We can move those two around.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Sagan. on the motion by Councilor Tseng to approve this draft as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Leming and it's discussed. Is there any public comment? I have two, I'm gonna go to Gaston just because he has been standing up a while. Please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Personally, I love the idea of putting our two least favorite colleagues at the little desks on the side. That's a complete joke. I mean, hey, I am all in favor of the original proposal. I think it basically is similar to what we have now, just the balances. It's still balanced. It's just balanced the other way a little bit. And you save, I think you have the same composition of both bodies and you don't have to maybe do a renovation in this room and maybe you don't have people speaking longer. I'm right there with you. I seriously think we might be the only two. the city who are 100% there. I hope I probably wrong on that, but certainly we're the only two have really spoken on it. I don't want to represent everyone else, but I'm pretty sure basically the reason it went up to the nine is that the study committee said a larger council would be more in line with what other cities have. If anyone else wants to speak to that, I'm yeah. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. And I will say again, this process allows for a lot more frequent review. This charter, if it passes, there's a frequent review process included within it, and hopefully we could look at stuff like rank choice and other items, proportional, et cetera. Great, thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. You coming up? Oh, boy. David and Tress are working. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng and Councilor Leming and seconded by, who do we have as a second? I know but we might already have one. I think I just want to make sure it was Vice President Collins, sorry. Nope, it's Vice President Collins, nobody else. You're going in those chairs. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. The affirmative. One absent. The motion passes. Don't worry, we're not done to 5039 offered by President Bears resolution regarding the schedule of the annual budget process for fiscal year 2026, be it resolved by the Manfred City Council that the Council President request city councilors submit individual budget recommendations to the clerk by Thursday, March 13, that is this Thursday. That is this Thursday, March 13 2025. Nope, I gotta read the whole thing. For consideration in a committee of the whole meeting next Tuesday, March 18th at 6pm. Be it further resolved that based on the budget ordinance and discussions with the administration, the city council and city administration will follow the following budget schedule for fiscal year 26 city budget. By March 13th, submit individual budget recommendations for consideration. March 18th at 6 p.m. City council committee of the whole meeting to discuss council budget recommendations. March 19th, 2025 at 6 p.m. joint meeting of the city council and the school committee to receive a financial update and discuss the fiscal year 26 budget process. Tuesday, March 25th, 2025. That's our next regular meeting to submit a collective budget recommendation to the mayor. From April 15 to May 21, the City Council will hold preliminary budget meetings with department heads, and by Friday, May 31, 2025, the Mayor will submit a comprehensive budget proposal to the City Council. Be it further resolved that the draft schedule of preliminary budget meetings in the Committee of the Whole is as follows. Tuesday, April 15 at 6pm. Tuesday, April 29 at 6pm. Wednesday, April 30 at 7pm. Tuesday, May 13 at 6pm. Tuesday May 20 at 6pm and Wednesday May 21 at 6pm. On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes 24040, sir. Councilor motion to motion a table to the next. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table papers 25040 and 25041 to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Sainz. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Public participation. public participation. If there is anyone who'd like to speak on any matter that they want to speak to for three minutes, please provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you for the Tufts Daily's work. Any further public comment? Seeing none, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Leming all those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Mic check. Check, check, mic. Test, sounds good. Are you with us till the bitter end tonight? Medford City Council committee the whole March 11 2025 is called to order Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: There'll be a meeting. of the Committee of the Whole. Today at 6 p.m., City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, to discuss paper 25037 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. This is to discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety in the city, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite representatives of the Medford Bicycle Advisory Commission, Walk Medford, and the City Administration to discuss pedestrian and bicycle safety on the city's streets and sidewalks and crosswalks. being further resolved. And this was part of the original resolution, which just comes from that the city council will work with DCR and our state delegation to make improvements to the crosswalk where Professor Dan Dill was killed as outlined in the email request by neighbors. And we also have had another fatality due to a collision right near here by the highway at the Salem Street Rotary Route 60. And I do have a communication from Director Blake that I can talk to that as well. But first I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, and then we'll hear from our invited folks. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yes. I just want to read quickly and you can come up and this'll be very fast. I'm just going to read two emails. One was from Todd Blake from Friday. It was hello, Councilors. Unfortunately, as you're aware, There were two recent and tragic traffic crashes resulting in pedestrian fatalities in Medford. I wanted to inform you that the State Mass Department of Transportation, Salem Street Rotary, and DCR, Mystic Valley Parkway at Lakeview and at High Street Rotary are working on plans to improve safety in these areas. We hope the final improvements will significantly improve upon existing conditions and hopefully be implemented soon. I can't speak for either agency on their specific plans or timeline, et cetera, but I am hopeful. Sincerely, Todd Blake, Director of Traffic and Transportation. And then also some residents have been reaching out to different departments and there was a response that was shared with me from mass dot around Salem Street Rotary, and it was our current concept plan focuses on realigning. the curbing in and around the rotary to significantly reduce the width of the circulating roadway. Modifying the radii for the connections entering and exiting the rotary should reduce travel speeds, increasing safety for vehicles and vulnerable road users. The modifications are being targeted for implementation this construction season as part of an ongoing interstate resurfacing project on this section of I-93. This approach will enable us to expedite the work necessary for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the east and west sides of the rotary. So those are the two communications I've received. And I also just wanted to thank our Bicycle Commission folks. I know this isn't the only thing we're here to talk about these two specific areas in these two specific incidents. I know you've been working on and have a plan, the city's bike plan that you've been working to update. So very encouraged to hear about that and hopes for investing more into the infrastructure. So I'll turn it over to you. And if you could just give us your name and address for the record, and we'll hear from you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I did ask the clerk to circulate that document to everybody. To Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just one second Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you. And I just wanted to know, Emily has her hand up, so I'll go to you and then I'll go to Emily if that works. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Emily was the chair. You are the new chair. Yes. Chair recognizes Emily O'Brien. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You should be able to now. Sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Emily.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Do we have comments from other Councilors at this time? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Hsieh.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll just note what council has already noted is that we're going to A, have more meetings on this issue. We hope to have a meeting specifically around the enforcement issue and what we can do there. We also are having upcoming budget meetings and it sounds like councilors are gonna take these recommendations into consideration when we make some recommendations to the mayor as she puts together the city budget. And we can keep pushing on the, on the issues that we can push on. You know, we don't have the ability to add things to the budget, and we don't have the ability to hire positions but we can certainly make it a part of our, our recommendations and conversation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion or public comment at this time?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yes. And working in collaboration with the department on that, that was great. I think the whole list is good. I think if there's something, either a lower cost thing that we can try to do right now or a top priority where that's the thing we need the most at this moment, that's always a helpful insight to have as well. and you can just feel free to share that by email with one of us and we'll make sure it gets around.
[Zac Bears]: You can always CC the clerk as well. If you'd ever like us all to see something, send it to Adam. All right, thank you. Are there a motion on the floor? A motion to keep the paper and committee in a turn? By Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee, the whole March 4th, 2025. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. This meeting is called to order. The action discussion item for tonight's meeting is 24-468 offered by Councilor Tseng, which is a resolution to discuss the draft city charter as amended by the governance committee, and I will go to Councilor Tseng to discuss the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I heard a motion to accept the recommendations of the study committee with the technical amendments and refer to regular meeting. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Before we go there, I just wanted to, I have one question or two questions, one from the clerk regarding that 9-11 change. The clerk has said that the certificates of election or appointment do now come from the board of elections commissioners. So is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: There was one other item where we were, or two other items, sorry, where one, we were supposed to get some recommended language back from the Collins Center. One was for the school committee regarding the section 4-5, subsection B, subsection 1, the language upon the recommendation of the superintendent. We were supposed to get language from school committee council. Did we get that?
[Zac Bears]: And then the last one was section 8-1. We requested language from the Collins Center regarding the procedure for legal review of group petitions. I don't think we received any language on that. Okay. So we can follow up. The residency requirement for the boards and commissions. Okay, so if you could add those three items and make sure we get that language back from Count Collins Center, since they didn't get it to us yet, that would be great. And you'll send a list of all of these to the clerk? Great. All right, I will go to, who do I have here? I'll go to Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll go from there, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify, the council was not involved in the formation of the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I knew I have three Councilors, but I just want to go and say, I think what you just said, Councilor Scarpelli, about the people contacting you is healthy. If again, I don't think the issue is that we're not listening people to people. I think the issue is that there are people we disagree with. You know, that's, that's what's at the core here, right? There are people who might agree with me on 95% of what I do. They don't agree with me on this. might disagree with you on 95% of what you do and say, but they agree with you on this. That's democracy. And I'm confident I've had conversations with residents who don't agree with me on this, residents who do agree with me on this, members of the Charter Study Committee who disagree with me on this, but don't think I'm a bad person for having a different opinion. And that's what I think healthy civic discourse is about. And I'm not saying, and I'm not saying you're saying I'm a person, but you know, and there are going to be people who for this is the most important thing. And they had an assumption that I felt a way that the platform didn't say. And then I don't think I said, never said there shall be eight and three. It was not written that way. There'll be people who this is their most important thing. And they don't believe that that's the interpretation and we're going to disagree. And we're going to have a conversation, I think, and we're going to get through it. And there's going to be people who aren't going to want to have that conversation and aren't going to be happy with me and aren't going to support me in the future. And there are people who are going to feel otherwise and I'm confident that the body of work that we do collectively and the individual work that we all do speaks to all of our roles and if the voters disagree. bless them and thank them because that is their right. And maybe you're right, maybe all six of us will be out of here because people don't like that we made this choice. And maybe all six of us might not even vote for it. And maybe we'll get thrown in the bag with everyone else, even if we did disagree on this or had different opinions on this. And I just want to note for the record, I didn't propose five and four. I came to the council I put out to the public a different proposal, my colleagues felt it should be adjusted, it was adjusted. And I don't think, and I really, the only piece of this that I really have a struggle with is that idea that We all knew what the process was. There would be a charter study committee that would put forward a proposal. This council would review and amend that proposal. The mayor would review and amend that proposal. The mayor got to make changes on her own, not in this meeting, not with public comment, not in front of everyone else. She'll get to make that choice after we send her what we send up as well in terms of whether she wants to support it or not. But again, this is the process this council was elected and is legally required to review the proposal. And this council went through an extensive process and made what I believe to be adjustments to 10% of the content of this charter. And I'm just going to close there I have more to say, but I'm going to go to the rest of my fellow Councilors first but it just really on those points, you know, It's not that we're not listening. It's that we don't agree with some people. Some people don't agree with me and they don't agree with some others of us for multitude of reasons. And I'm very confident that we can work through those disagreements. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, Councilor Kelly and and I will go to multi-member districts, proportional bodies, ranked choice voting. Some of these were things that I brought up in my conversations with the Charter Study Committee. If this had a ranked choice voting element to the Ward and District, to the eight and three model, I would feel much more confident about the upsides of that model and much less confident about the downsides. But from the conversations that we had with the CSC and the Collins Center, essentially they said, because we're going through the special act process, things that the legislature has not approved before, We should not include them because they're more likely to slow down the process of moving through the legislature or that the legislature is likely to not allow them at all. And my understanding is that the places that do have ranked choice voting did so through home rule processes, and not through special act processes so that's my understanding of the discussion I don't know if Councilor Tseng if you have a further summary.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so there's kind of a constriction on the models we're able to look at because of the Special Act process and the need for approval from the legislature, especially in a timely manner. I had Councilor Collins and Councilor Lembing. No, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Some might call that spin. What are Councilors saying?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any of the councillors would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'm going to share my viewpoint at this point. First thing I wanna go around us and is disagreeing can be hard and there'll be hard feelings and people won't be happy because someone disagreed with them on something that they didn't expect them to disagree with them on. And we're gonna work through that. I wanna bring us back to in general, and this is my five bullet points. If we take the sum total of the survey and what the Charter Study Committee brought us for public process, and to be honest, my own conversations over the last five years, in general, this proposal reflects a consensus of the people. I think both the Charter Study Committee proposal and the amended proposal. It's to keep a mayor council form of government, no city manager, we're not doing that. To have a balance of powers where the council is slightly stronger and the mayor is slightly less stronger, but to maintain a strong mayor weak council system, which both do. To have hybrid representation for the council and the school committee, meaning some at large and some localized. to create a clear document that is modern and that residents can access and read when they wanna understand what the foundational document of our community is. And quite frankly, that there would be less mayoral involvement in the school committee. That seems pretty clear as well, both from my conversations and the discussion we've had and from the Charter Study Committee's materials and report, which I have read the whole thing a couple of times. So that's what the people seem to want. Now, I think both of these proposals reflect that. On the specifics, I also wanna just talk about the process really quickly that when we talk about this council's involvement, I think in addition to whatever anyone else wants to bring up, this is also the most diverse council with the most women, the youngest, with the first person of color under this form of government, and I believe under the last form of government. And I think that should be taken into account as well. I believe Councilor Tseng is the first person of color to vote in this process so far, from Sim to Stern. I think that should be accounted for as well. When we talk about the proposal of what does hybrid representation look like on both bodies. Again, I came in with a different thought. I thought, wow, I really like what the charter study committee proposed for the school committee. I think it works for the council. Let's do it. I was summarily told from all sides that I was wrong. And we have a different proposal in front of us, which is five at-large Councilors and four district Councilors. Am I unhappy that what I thought was a good idea was not moved ahead? I might be. But the reason I think the principle around how I feel about the localized and at-large representation and hybrid representation on the council is one of balance. There are costs and benefits to every decision. And I believe that this model minimizes the costs. of more localized representation and maximizes the benefits. The core benefit we've heard is this question of equity. And I think Councilor Tseng really spoke to maximizing that this can maximize that benefit. There are real costs when we talk about the localized representation. I also have talked to councillors in many communities, district and ward, both hybrid communities. And they do talk about some of the downsides, seats that go with an incumbent for 10, 20, 30 years, almost always unchallenged. That happens. They talk about maybe it's not formally in the charter that a ward Councilor gets a power, but there's informal power that comes through process and relationship with the mayor where a ward Councilor or a localized Councilor in any model district or ward ends up having significantly more say in something that's going on in their district or ward than the other members of the council. And maybe something never even gets to the other Councilors. There is no consideration by everybody. And that's what has happened in some communities. People have talked to me about that. As I noted, I think because we're going through the special act process, there are a lot of options that could have mitigated these costs. like a ranked choice model, or looking at multi-member districts, or looking at proportional representation. Councilor Tseng cited social science research, best practices, and I won't reiterate it, but just to say again, that looking at those other ways of voting, like a ranked choice model, like multi-member districts. Those are ways to solve the costs that are associated with localized representation and preserve the benefits. They're not tools available to us because of the process that we're going through. I'm just gonna finish and remind everyone and say that by and large, from every conversation that I've had and from what the Charter Study Committee report said, people want a charter that keeps the mayor council form of government. that slightly strengthens the council but maintains a strong mayor weak council form of government. That is a clear document that is modern and easy for people to access and understand the foundation of our community's governance. That there is less mayoral involvement in the school committee and that there's hybrid representation for both the council and the school committee. And I am confidently happy to say that this proposal, if the amendment voted by Councilor Tseng is, or proposed by Councilor Tseng has moved to the regular meeting, and if the council at its regular meeting refers us to the mayor, that it fulfills those principles. We may disagree on specifics. Anyone who disagrees with me, Call me, email me. I know some folks have tried to get in touch today. I've had a personal issue today. And I apologize, I couldn't respond to people today. I will try to as we move forward, as I move through this myself. I've talked to a lot of people about this. Anywho, but there has been some today, a few, who've contacted me today. And I'm just gonna say at the end of this that I feel that sometimes doing the right thing, what we believe to be the right thing is hard. Sometimes it's not what our friends want or what the people who are most active want or what our colleagues want, but sometimes we still have to do it. I'm confident that as amended and referred out, this charter will pass. with the voters because I don't think the voters are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I really don't. And quite frankly, I hope as I will, and as I think many others will, that even though we didn't all get everything that we wanted to see in this charter, those of us who believe in changing this charter will work together to get this done and not put it into a political process and you say it gives ammunition to whomever or whatever. I really hope that we can all work together and do that because I think the voters know that this reflects what they've said they'd like to see from a charter change. And I think we can all work together to fulfill that and have a new charter in effect in 2027 for the 2027 elections. So that's what I'll be doing. That's where I stand. And to those who are frustrated or angry or confused or feel that I don't have not, that this wasn't the way that I would approach this. I'm happy to talk to you and I think we can work through it. Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming. Do any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, could you read, read, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro. We do have a motion on the floor. I was gonna have the clerk read it, but this is, I'll go to you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we could do that. We could also if this is a motion to amend Councilor Sagan's motion.
[Zac Bears]: If he doesn't want it, we could vote on the proposal to amend the motion, whichever one you prefer. So are you essentially proposing to have a vote on the representation?
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to say that we could, there's two ways we could do this. We could sever out the compensation or Councilor Zizaro could vote to try to amend this, could say, I would like to amend this to eight words and three at large, and we could vote on that amendment. Okay, so there's a motion from Councilor Lazzaro to sever the vote on adopting the Governance Committee's recommendation on the composition of the Council with a second from Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Is that a yes or? You oppose? Okay. So there's a vote to sever. Yeah, so council is our move to sever the vote to adopt the governance committee's recommendation regarding council composition. And I'm just gonna call a roll on that. Seconded by Councilor Leming, yes. So this means we would vote on all of the other recommendations and then, or vote on the composition and then all the other ones, there'd be two separate votes. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yeah, this is on the motion to sever. So if you vote yes, you vote to sever.
[Zac Bears]: This is the vote to sever. So all this means is that we would have two separate votes.
[Zac Bears]: On the day of my daughter's wedding. Come to me. Yes. So that means that the motion is severed. And we will have two votes. So just in case anyone wondered, I'm voting for us to have a special specific vote on this specific item. Just so in case people say later, I'm a dictator, I'm not. I'm gonna wait for the clerk. All right, motion severed. We'll start with the council composition. So there's a motion. We're gonna do it, but I'm gonna just... We will have public participation on the motion. Now that the motion is severed, I wanna reread. So it's two motions now. So I wanna make sure that we know what we're talking about. So the first motion is the motion to adopt the governance committee's recommendation on the council composition, which is a five at large for district. A vote yes is a vote to say yes to five at large and four district. A vote no is to say no to five at large and four district. That is what we're talking about now. Then we will talk about all the other amendments. Is there any further discussion by members of the council on this motion? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. This is about council composition only, and then we will have comment on the other items. Please raise your hands on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Name and address for the record. One second here. And you will have three minutes and we'll go to you at the podium. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom, Glenn Dixon. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes and I am going to try to hold closer to the three minutes going forward.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The address record you have, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Ron, could you let us know when those interviews happened?
[Zac Bears]: And we don't have it that way. We can't give people our time. In public participation? No, we can't. So I do have two members of the council who would like to comment, but I did want to note too, and Anna may have more information on this. Excuse me, if we could take conversations outside, if we're going to have them. Thank you. Thank you. If you want to take it outside and then come back in after you've discussed it, that's welcome. Thank you. So, first I want to say to Zach on zoom if you could please add a last name last time I unmuted someone who did not have a last name I regretted it please add your last name to your name on zoom to. Melvin McDonald's question about other cities that have districts in addition to Boston and Worcester Lowell has districts, Lawrence has districts, Methuen has districts, Amesbury has districts, these are all on the city council I'm reading their websites. The town acting as the city of barn city acting as a town of Barnesville has districts, the city acting as the town of Randolph has districts, the city acting as the town of Amherst has districts and Framingham, Massachusetts also has districts so those are all cities who have districts that are a combination of precincts or wards. Yes, I'd have to do a little bit more research. Yes. Methuen right here it's multiple precincts combined into districts. That's the city of Methuen. Yeah. The town of Amherst also has that and that's a town but it's a city government form act labeled as a town. So I just wanted to put that out there. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming. I'd like to keep it brief so we can move into more public comment. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Oh, sorry. We can, we'll hold. If we're going to have private discussions, can we please take them out of the room? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Oh, sorry. Last person who spoke was wrong. So we'll go back to zoom. Name and address for the record on Zoom. We'll go to Zach on Zoom. You have three minutes. And thank you for mentioning your name.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I believe I was the one who said throw the baby out with the bathwater. I meant the voters in November. I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. I have Alyssa on Zoom. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's just-
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go back to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Joliot. And just to the point about the speed, I don't personally entirely disagree with you, but the reason that we... are on this timeline, as we've been told by the Collins Center, that if we don't submit it to the legislature by the end of March, it's unlikely that they will consider it in time to be placed on the November 2027 ballot. And that has been raised as a consideration by the Collins Center and, sorry, November 2025, thank you, ballot and Well, that's as it was written as such that if you read the full thing, it's written as an act of the legislature. And it says to be placed on November 4th, 2025 ballot that came from the study committee and the legislature and the call-in center said to keep that timeline, you really should get it to the legislature by the end of March. I have my own personal views about maybe where we could go back and do more on this, but that seems to have been what people, the timeline people have wanted.
[Zac Bears]: You also had demographic data. Do you have that available? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will go back to Councilors saying we did approach Councilors saying I approached the mayor about trying to Start this process of the council element of this process earlier last summer last fall, and we decided to wait for the study committee to finish its process. And that that was the decision we made. Councilor Tseng Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. We'll go to Sheila. Sheila, name and address for the record, please, and we'll have three minutes. Sheila, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Oh, I saw you for a second. I'm gonna send the request again, Sheila. Oh, sorry, here you go. Sheila, I'm gonna request that you unmute one more time. Sorry, I think I accidentally muted you on the last one. There you go, you're unmuted. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, and I'm gonna start the timer when you say your name and your address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Ron, there are three more people who haven't spoken yet and then I'll come back to you. Go to Zoom, I have a D Silva. D, I'm gonna unmute you and then I will start the timer after you give your name and address. D Silva. All right, I'll go then to Paul Geraghty. Paul, I'm going to unmute you. Please give your name and address, and then I'll start the timer for three minutes. Paul.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul. All right, I'm seeing D Silva's hand again. I will go back to you. D Silva, I'm requesting that you unmute. Are you seeing the button come up for you to unmute? I've pressed it again, requesting the unmute. All right, I will go to then Daniel Mazinski. Daniel, you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Marie Izzo. Marie, I'm going to request to unmute, and then I'll start the timer when you give your name and address. Marie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Marie. I'll go to Mike on Zoom. Mike, I'm gonna unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mike. I will go back to the podium, run another three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think he said it was without context and didn't include other elements of what he said.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want to speak to things I can't characterize. I'll come back when he's here. Can you do that?
[Zac Bears]: No, I think that he said, I don't think we should characterize his words.
[Zac Bears]: I think he actually he did state that what you had said was correct, but not out of context. But there were other statements that he made that provided context. I get it. But I just think I don't think he was saying you were lying.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng has said that he said accurate, but there were other comments.
[Zac Bears]: We've gone over about a minute now. You can come up again. But I just want to respect.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to respect hearing from all. I'm done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ron. I'm going to go try D Silva one more time, D on Zoom. I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. I'm going to take people who haven't spoken first.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to take people who haven't spoken first, but I'm trying to go to D Silva on Zoom right now, D. They've disappeared again. So I will go back to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: We'll take Ron after we've heard from people who haven't had a chance to speak yet. Just think he needs to be heard. That's all we'll hear from him. Thank you. I just want to hear from everyone. And equally. Thank you. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm seeing no hands on zoom, I will go back to the podium. Is there anyone who'd like to speak? Mr. South, would you like to speak? You haven't spoken yet, so I'll take you first. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes and then I'll go back to you, Chair McDowell.
[Zac Bears]: a bunch of a bunch of what's that just if you could address the other Councilors through my I am. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do. I appreciate you bringing up the volunteer piece of this. We haven't said that enough. And Chairman McDonald can certainly correct me. I believe you were all volunteer. I'm not sure what the call center had a grant or something or if they did this out of for free and also I believe you can correct me I don't think any city budget was allocated to the review study committee. either. You can correct me.
[Zac Bears]: And did you have any funds allocated for your outreach?
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to you again for another three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I reviewed that, you were right, I was wrong, I apologize for making that statement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to, I did further, Quick research on it as well. I appreciate you doing that. The Amesbury, they combine precincts. Framingham also combines precincts and they recently adopted a new charter moving from town to city. So it does seem more common in the town context. I just wanted to feel free. No, I'm saying I pull back some of what I said earlier and thank you for bringing up the piece. Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And there are a lot of- They specifically stated they weren't providing legal advice, nor were they providing a recommendation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, Councilor Callahan did put up a document I think at the January 22nd Governance Committee meeting. There's a copy of the minutes in the reports, but the recording is available comparing many communities in Massachusetts, the average size of the various districts, wards or precincts that compose their local representation in their hybrid models. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, seeing no other public comment, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I think you described it well. I think everyone here has had the interview they had listed or it's been mentioned, yours wasn't, but it was mentioned that your position had changed from that interview. There were the positions then, there's the positions now, people have vocalized them and we are where we are. So I will go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Their charter's 1938 and it's not ranked choice, it's way weirder than that, but we'll digress, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: We have Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, there are things that call themselves towns but operate as cities, and I'm betting that database includes them, but it might not. So just something to remember.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, good.
[Zac Bears]: There are some things that call themselves towns, but they operate under a city structure with a council and a mayor or a manager rather than a town meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that because that's the last thing I was hopefully the last thing to say. And where I was going with it is, you know, the fundamental question that we're disputing and debating and we have now for two very long meetings on this topic is how big should the local districts be. And we are confined by the structure that we have right, you can make the argument that eight wards leaves out eight precincts, so we should have 16 precinct Councilors. I don't think anyone would say that because we shouldn't have a 30-person council like Newton. Nobody wants that, but it's the same argument. And I think we're trapped by the fact that we don't have six wards with three precincts each. If we had six wards with three precincts each, I think everyone here would say, let's do six ward Councilors, five at-large Councilors. You have a majority ward. It's pretty evenly balanced. Let's go for it. I would. That's what Weymouth has. We don't want to draw districts, we don't want to draw six districts, which might be in between these four districts in the eight ward size, because the city, you know, the State House hasn't seen that quite. Then we don't want to have the model where we're drawing districts, right? I mean, there's a million different reasons, many of them stemming from the Special Act process and the legislature, why we are where we are. But again, that is my concern. How small is too small? I think eight is too small. That's based on the additional research I've done over the past five years, and especially over the last year and six months. It seems there's an assertion that four is too big, but there's no way to split up 16 precincts six ways. Math doesn't work. So again, we are constrained by the process. And we have had a discussion about the process extensively saying as to why we're not exploring ranked choice voting, why we're not exploring proportional, why we're not exploring multi-member districts, why we're not exploring council authority for the budget, why we're not exploring council authority on other matters. There's a whole bunch of things that we've just said we're not gonna do because the legislature is probably gonna delay or deny. And again, quite frankly, we have here a model that is used in another part of the charter recommended by the study committee, a district model. If it was gonna be muster for the school committee, we felt it seems that it would meet muster for the council on a legal basis only. And we are where we are. I wish we had a different number of awards. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My view, I didn't look at a full database. I looked at specific cities. It's very similarly that our wards tend to, on average, the average population of our wards is smaller than wards in most of the places that have this model. I will go back. We have one hand on Zoom. Is there anyone else in the chamber who'd like to speak? I'm gonna go to the hand on Zoom. It's a new person, and then I'll come back to the podium. Muneer Germanis, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, I'm going to try to unmute you. And you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. No more hands on Zoom. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm not 100% sure if it already has been. If the mayor involved the KP Law team at some point, they are currently serving as the acting city solicitor. Certainly, sorry, if you'd like to respond.
[Zac Bears]: That's all. Certainly. No, I 100% support this being reviewed by council. And in addition to council for the city, we have been told that will be reviewed by house and Senate council if it is submitted to the legislature. So there'd be at least two legal review processes. There may have already been another one, which is just, I just wanted to put that out there. I don't know if the mayor already did that once. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: That's attorney Greenspan. He works for the Metro Public Schools. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. I see no further public comment in the chamber, if I'm correct. Len? No? And I don't see any hands on Zoom. So that brings us back to the motion. The motion on the floor is It's been a while here. Yeah, we just want to read it out loud.
[Zac Bears]: I'm saying that to Justin. It'll be right above that. Tomorrow. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right above that there's a, oh, sorry. There you go. So there was a motion to sever and that was to vote on the motion to adopt the governance committee recommendations regarding the composition of the council. And just a reminder, a yes vote would have five at-large members and four district members. A no vote would revert to the initial recommendation of the study committee of eight ward members and three at-large members. I'm guessing we want a roll call. Anyone want to request one? Yes. A yes is for five at-large, four district. A no would not adopt the recommendation and would revert the language back to the initial proposal of eight ward and three at-large. Is there a request for roll? Roll requested by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion by Councilor Lazzaro. I guess seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative, the motion is adopted. Next order of business is the motion to refer to the council for the next regular meeting agenda. The draft as amended by the Governance Committee with the technical amendments he outlined and with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies. And there's a second on that motion from Vice President Collins. Would members of the council like the technical amendments read back? Is there a request to read back the technical amendments? We will include them in the record of the committee report and they will be included in the red line draft that appears before the council at regular meetings. On that motion, is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Public participation, you will provide your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. If there's any public participation in the room, please approach the podium. There is one hand on Zoom. Eunice, I think you're Eunice Brown, and I hope so. So it's not a Zoom bomber. Eunice, I'll ask you to unmute, and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, we'll hear your second question.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's a fair question. I would say that we did, I believe, accept all the edits that the mayor made. Whether she intends to do the same or not, that's up to her. Yeah, certainly if there is a significant further negotiation, there would be likely at least a need for another vote of the council at a regular meeting, probably another committee meeting. And that would probably move us past the March deadline.
[Zac Bears]: Certainly if the mayor were to return a draft to us two days after we sent it, we would try to schedule a committee or a special meeting to get something back on for the 25th that she could send out. But really that is up to her, how quickly she returns a response to us. And then if changes are needed, how quickly we can work through the differences. To your first question regarding the public comment. We have been considering the charter as submitted the language was sent to Councilor Tseng and was then sent. This is the public comment language that you mentioned is sent a chair saying. who through the clerk submitted it to the full council. And it was not submitted as part of the charter as drafted. And no Councilor raised an amendment to include it at any of our meetings. So it's not included.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Vice President Collins, to refer this to the Council for the next agenda, the draft as amended by the Governance Committee with the technical amendments outlined by Councilor Tseng, and with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies. Further comment, name and address, just give me.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So we just have to make sure there will be language that goes into the draft for next week that has a residency requirement. If it's whatever its sources, it will be included. Right, right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to throw out that I guarantee you the legislature would say that's an opening to things that they don't want to do around I don't know if anyone else has an opinion on that, but that's my read of the legislature.
[Zac Bears]: In principle, I completely agree with you, but the non-citizen, the under 18, 16 plus voting legislature has been pretty cool to both of those. And I think they'd see anything in a charter that allows participation in the electoral process from non-registered voters would probably raise a flag for them. But that's just my opinion. Any other thoughts on that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Eunice, is that an old hand or a new hand? I'll just ask you to unmute in case it's new.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is the motion, sorry, I already read it. I already read this back once. This is the motion to refer to the council for the next agenda. I read it once, but I'll read it again. Councilor Tseng moved to refer to the council for the next agenda, the draft as amended by the governance committee with the technical amendments he outlined, and also with the amendment proposed by Councilor Scarpelli to include a residency requirement for multi-member bodies, seconded by Vice President Collins. Thank you. All right, on that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Is there any further discussion or business for tonight? I think we've disposed of the items on the agenda. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: I move to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I can't hear you either. It's weird.
[Zac Bears]: That was close. I'm going to yell. Yeah, you might have to yell.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm a yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. And thanks, Amanda. I mean, I'm generally, you know, I want to get this project done. And I know it's been a really a ton of work to put all the different funds together. So want to make sure you have the resources you need to complete it. I also just was wondering, is there any contingency The amount in the current budget, or was it was that just like, not able to be added in because of limited funding.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. Yeah, that's helpful. And so I'm guessing this, but I mean, 35,000 is way less than 2.3 to 4% of the project budget. So, okay. All right, well, I hope those footings are cheaper.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, great, thanks. I move to approve this request.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll move to approve the minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by... I'll second it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I move to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And sorry if this isn't the next section, but if you guys talk a little bit about the protection for single families in the UR1 and UR2 districts.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. And I think just to add to that point, specifically, we're going to be talking commercial framework, Medford Square, West Medford Square, Wellington, Glenwood, and we're especially going to be talking about the Tufts Institutional District and Boston Ave and Main Street. And those are, I think I did those out of order, but those are the four remaining topics.
[Zac Bears]: just to clarify for me as well. The next meeting of this committee, we're going to be talking about the commercial framework. We're doing the commercial framework. We're going to kick off the commercial framework at the next meeting. All right. Yes, that's right. So we should be moving together. Great. Okay. I'll make that motion and then we should hear from everybody.
[Zac Bears]: I'll make a motion to refer this to the regular meeting. Um, but we should certainly do public participation before we take any votes.
[Zac Bears]: And one, one other question. Sorry. Um, you guys are going to look at the comments from the building commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: There is no further proposed public Q&A on the Salem Street. The Salem Street public Q&A was dated as February 10th, because that's when we had it at the Roberts School. I think what Vice President Collins is describing is that essentially these planning and permitting committee meetings are to develop a draft That draft is then referred to the Community Development Board, which is when the official public hearing process required by state law for zoning occurs. And you have a public hearing in the Community Development Board and then a public hearing of the council. We are creating this public Q&A meeting in addition to, it's outside of the legal process, but it occurs between the referral of this to the initial referral of a proposal drafted by the Planning and Permitting Committee to the Community Development Board and the first hearing of the Community Development Board. So we've already had the Q&A for Salem Street. There's no further Q&As planned. The next Q&As are planned for a March Q&A regarding the residential proposals we're discussing tonight, and an April Q&A for at least some of the commercial proposals we intend to start discussing next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to president bears first. I mean, I think that gets to the crux of the, of the whole zoning project really. Um, and I think the vision based on the comprehensive plan is that every neighborhood would see some incremental increase in its density.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: I think it would only be new. So if you were to, I think the answer to the question is no, but it's probably the place where that's most happening because of the uniqueness of the SF district in that neighborhood, like surrounding that SF district is mostly non-SF districts, where in most other parts of the city with existing SF districts, They're surrounded by SF districts, if that makes sense. And also because of the transit. So those are, it's probably the place where the impact is happening the most, but I wouldn't say it's the only place where you have a single family allowed by right now where it wouldn't be allowed by right in the future. But when you made a point about the useful life of the existing structure. if you had a 120-year-old single family and you are, if this passed as is, with a UR1 and you had 120-year-old single family that was nearing its end of its useful life and needed reconstruction, because it's an existing nonconforming use, you could still rebuild the single family on that lot because of how the zoning's written. So if someone has a single family and they say, I can't renovate this, I need a new single family, they could still do that. It would be if someone had an empty lot, or wanted to convert a two family to a single family, or basically wanted to build a new single family where one didn't already exist. That would be the only piece that wouldn't be allowed. If you could just speak into the microphone. Sorry, it's okay. It's a pain in the butt.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: And I think that's one of the hard parts about zoning. And when you talk about the vision, it is a, it's a vision for 10 to 20 years and it's about doing something or even 30 to, you know, 10 to 40 years really. And the comprehensive plan that we put together talks about a 30 year kind of timeline. And by we, I mean literally a ton of people worked on that.
[Zac Bears]: So that's allowed right now. There are state laws governing condo conversion. And then KITT has been working on a condo conversion ordinance specifically for Medford.
[Zac Bears]: But I just want to talk more about the vision because I think it's important and I think you know there's probably disagreement on it I'm not saying we disagree but generally I don't think we've had a lot of conversations lately about what it means for everyone to agree on something and that's very rare. But I think in general, the vision is there's an incremental increase in density across the city, across all of the city's zoning districts. But I do think that the neighborhood that we're talking about, not necessarily all of Hillside, but this section that is close to the train and is the single family district right now is probably seeing more an increase of like two increments more than, and then a lot of places might only be seeing one increment more. And I think, you know, just to be direct to the question, I think, yeah, I think in 10 to 20 years, you'd probably see more two and three families where there are single families right now in that neighborhood. And I think a lot of that is, you know, yes, there is the demand for, you know, families to live in single family homes. It's a high demand neighborhood. And then the question is, who does that demand get to benefit, right? If we leave the zoning as it is, you end up with single family homes that are worth $1.2, $1.4, $1.6, $1.8 million. I wish.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I'm saying in that 10 to 20 year time frame, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the value with the walkability to the Green Line. and the neighborhood.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I think the question I'm saying is, how do you distribute that so that maybe, yes, that structure is still going to be worth that, but can you have more people living there so that the demand is that people are going to want to live there? Do you want it to only be accessible to a family that can afford a $2 million single family? Or do you want it to be accessible to maybe two families who want to live in $1 million condos or a two family apartment, you know, and that's where I think the density piece comes in is you're saying that more, yes, more people can live on a single lot, but it also means that people, you don't have to have as ridiculously high of an income to live in the neighborhood. And I think it's a balance.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: But your per unit costs would be lower.
[Zac Bears]: Right, I think the question is the square foot versus the per unit.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah, I think it's a great debate.
[Zac Bears]: I would guess that. Yeah. No, it was a good discussion. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if I could just You know, I think this is basically the discussion we're having, right? We're seeing land values increase generally already. The value of land, the value of structures in the community has increased significantly. It drives that and the demand generally again for people wanting to live close to Boston drives rent increases, it drives increase in land value and You know, we're having this discussion I don't think anyone's disputing that. What is an up zoning is going to increase the land value per square foot of these lots right that's going to happen. And I think the question is, on a per unit basis and again you know we talked a lot at a previous meeting I'd like to see a lot of, you know, federal investment, state investment, non-market solutions to lower the price of housing, because I think housing is about housing people, not just as serving as a commodity. And I think what we've seen is that it's because it's been commodified, we end up in this conflict where, you know, again, moving on from that, we have the land values are going up. allowing someone to build more on a lot is going to increase the land values more. And then the question is, what you allow them to build, does it actually potentially allow you to house more people there and reduce the per unit cost of housing people? And I think that's the kind of crux where we're looking at this specific project, which is just about the rules that we're setting for the market in Medford. I think that intersects in a lot of different ways with policies that we should be implementing that aren't about just letting the market do it at once. And I think one of the reasons that we got here is that the city's existing zoning is exclusionary zoning. It's dated after the construction of a lot of these neighborhoods. So the reason that a single family in that neighborhood is nonconforming is because somebody said, 120 years ago, people were like, we want to build these houses here on this lot size, this shape. And we don't even really have to ask anybody what we want to do. And then 50 or 60 years after that, people wrote a law that said, actually, we don't want to let them do that anymore. And we'd have to go look back at the intent of that. But a lot of that was because communities didn't want to let more people live here, or certain kinds of people live here, or shape neighborhoods in certain ways. And I think one of the intents of what we're trying to do is to say, at the very least, the zoning should at least look like what the neighborhoods looked like when they were built. And that because of the need for housing in our community, they should allow somewhat more housing in those neighborhoods. And I don't think I think everyone's completely right that's going to look at that will look like change neighborhoods will change. Whether they change incredibly fast or incredibly slow is going to be up to the people the private owners of those properties, because we're setting essentially the rules for the private market agnostic of whoever those private actors are. We can't control who buys land. We can't control who develops land. All we can say is here's what we allow you to build on this land through the different processes that the state law allows. And I think talking about the neighborhood around the you know, Brookings Street and George Street and the Medford-Tufts Station, that's one place. It's the only single-family district south of the river. It's the only single-family district in such close proximity to a rapid transit line. And that's why I think the change and the pace of change, both the scope of change and the pace of change, will probably seem bigger than in some other parts of the city, but I don't think any part of the city will see no change. And I think that's a reality that we're facing because people want to live in cities and more people want to live here than we have the ability to house here. And if we do nothing, then we will continue to limit who can live here based on class and their cost of housing or their luck to have purchased a house at a certain time in the past rather than a time in the future. And I think those are our values. Sometimes those conversations will put our different values in conflict and we'll have to come up with what we think is an approach that sits with reality, but also maybe doesn't satisfy everything that we would like to see. I'll also say that I think we're taking a thoughtful approach. And for me personally, I'm on the line here in this neighborhood around the NR3 versus the UR1 designation. I've gone back and forth. And I've heard that from folks. And similarly, I think there's a bunch of geographic And there's certain sets of conditions that, to me, put certain neighborhoods on this borderline of, for certain values and reasons, you could go this way. For certain values and reasons, you could go this way. And it's a close call. And so I got an email from Laurel today about the NR3 versus the R1. I'm hearing what you're saying about it. Yeah, and I think that is one of the harder This is one of the places where, because of the unique conditions, some of your values are going to say this should go the UR1 just because it has such high demand and access. And some of you say you should go the NR3 because it's probably the district that's seeing the greatest change because it's a unique location for a single family district in the city right now. So that was a long and rambling thought, but I hope it at least goes to show that we're thinking and talking about these different issues. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Just to, and I don't wanna, I don't wanna, Contrary to anything you said, but generally the events calendar is the last is the final place where the meetings dates and times and links go up because those are created by the city communications department after the clerk's office at Vice President Collins and I published the agendas. So the events calendars usually only updated meeting. Um you know, the Friday before those meetings if you go to the City Council page on the website, there's a link to the January to June 2025 City Council meeting schedule. Um and the meetings of this committee for March, April, May and June are all on there right now. Um for March and April, it's March I think March 26 or April 9 is probably when we will talk about those specifics, but I defer to the Chair on exactly the date for the Boston Ave. Tufts Main Street.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just add again, like if folks are interested in this process through the end of June, our meetings are on the website, March 12th, March 26th, April 9th, April 30th, May 14th, May 28th, June 11th and June 25th. And that's these meetings where we develop the proposals before they get referred into the zoning process and the public hearings and the state law, the whole state law process. Thank you for your efforts.
[Zac Bears]: I won't say any impediment, and knowing your definition of impediment, I'm just, I'm trying to be a little lighthearted, but We read the, if you want to, we read the non-conforming, we reviewed the non-conforming use and structure section of the ordinance. And right now it allows you to build up to a hundred percent. So you could have, you have a 1300 square foot single family, and let's say a UR1 passes, it becomes a non-conforming use on that lot. You could build up to a 2600. square foot, single family, I think you have to do within two years but Alicia probably has that right in front of her. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Budweiser.
[Zac Bears]: I don't even know how to begin to respond to the comment.
[Zac Bears]: It's in the city's reserve funds.
[Zac Bears]: It's so it can be accessed during the time between when the fiscal year ends and when free cash is certified each year. Otherwise, the money is not accessible for use. It's state.
[Zac Bears]: Crushing it. OK. Thank you for your comments. I can comment on a couple pieces of that. On the car barn question, I think you can see from the zoning that we are really hoping that we could see that neighborhood knit back together with the disruptive MBTA site, hopefully paired with the target site in the large parking lot. The idea for Haines Square is that we no longer have bus storage, but and essentially empty parking lots and bus storage, but a vibrant mixed-use district on Salem Street and on the Fellsway, where we have the T property now. But we haven't, as Alicia noted, A, we can't control the MBTA from buying anything. If they bought the Budweiser location and plan to put something there, that's their choice to do that. The city doesn't control who buys and sells property, nor do we control what the state agencies do, much to our chagrin, I would add. That's really, I think, all I have there. Just on this affordability question, trying to collect my thoughts. Um, I think something that we talk about, like we're, and it's happened multiple times on the different policies that we've tried to look at here, whether we're talking about a conversation about condo conversion or rent stabilization or rental registry or transfer fee or zoning, those are all individual potential pieces of a comprehensive solution to a regional housing crisis. And there are also pieces of the solution that are within the scope of what the city can do. What we're seeing regionally is high demand for housing, stagnant supply due to the financialization and commodification of land and housing, due to the high cost of construction, doing to regulatory limits on supply and zoning, and what you end up seeing is increasing prices. And in terms of a comprehensive solution, there are basically three options. You can increase supply. One is by reducing those regulatory barriers to construction by allowing people to build larger structures and more housing units than they were before, which is generally done through zoning. You can have public funding for the construction of housing, generally that's income restricted and affordable housing. And so that's your increased supply bucket. I think we all know the city of Medford does not have large amounts of money to build housing, nor are we allowed to borrow money using municipal bonds to build housing. So in that increasing supply bucket, basically the only tool we have is to change the zoning and the rules for private land. So that's increased supply, that's one solution. The second solution is you can subsidize costs. So you could increase rental assistance. That's to try to just reduce the price to the end user. We've generally seen that that's not an effective solution. It's basically a pass through to property owners. There's been some ways that this has worked a little bit better, like inclusionary zoning, which is like getting a private subsidy. for housing. Of course, there are federal programs around this. And then the third thing you can do is you can control, literally do price controls. So you can have rent control, rent stabilization, or you can limit profiteering, right? Those are essentially your three solutions to the problem. And the problem is that the price of housing is too high. Now, what's actually within our power to do in that entire bucket? We don't have the state authority to do rent stabilization. You don't have the state authority to do the transfer fee, which is a price control in some ways, or at least it de-incentivizes profiteering. And it's in some ways a private subsidy, because if someone wants to, if you instituted a transfer fee on a flip or flipped houses, for example, you could then, you know, someone still went through that, A, it's disincentivizing that because they're gonna have to pay more money, and then that money goes to the city and that could be used to subsidize cost of housing or fund construction of new housing. But my point generally being that those are your policy options. And I personally support a combination of those options, but within our authority, and the reason we've spent 20, this is the 20th meeting? You know, I think the reason that we put so much of our focus on the zoning question is that it's the only element of that policy basket that is entirely within municipal control, or at least largely within municipal control by Massachusetts law. Do I agree that just changing the zoning solves the problem? No. But I just think it's why we're spending so much time talking about it. So just wanted to put that out there again, because I think it's important to note that we have talked about asking the state to give us more authority in some of these other policies. We either haven't asked them, or they've said no to other cities, so we haven't tried to ask them. But personally, I would support. Certainly, I would support the state and federal government spending billions of dollars to build more income-restricted and affordable housing. I think that's actually the huge missing piece of these conversations when it comes to increasing the supply of housing that's actually affordable for most people and allowing people of all incomes to afford housing in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That was a motion to... A motion to refer the draft to the regular meeting. take that to combine that with the motion to adjourn. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: You're up.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think what we're talking about here is continuing an effort that has borne some fruit and needs to bear more fruit. I think ideally, right, we would have enough of a budget where you could have an inclusion specialist in all the relevant departments and someone to coordinate all of them. That's a system that I think everyone would support because you'd have the level of resources that, quite frankly, other communities have, neighboring communities, but those are also communities with more money in their city budgets. And I think sometimes when we have these conversations about addressing urgent needs and where the resources should be placed. You know, I don't think anyone disagrees that the Recreation Department needs more staff and support. I don't think anyone disagrees that we need a citywide approach and citywide staffing to address inclusion. But I think the question is, what is the system that you build with the resources that you have now that is a foundation? And then what How do you then grow that with more resources. I don't have the answer to that question, but I think that that is the path, that's the way like I would like to think about and frame it. on the issue of inclusion, maybe starting with someone in the inclusion office or someone in the mayor's office that has that citywide scope. If we're talking about, there's only one person that this budget's going to be able to support in addition to who we have now, that to me might be the approach because then you have someone who could work with recreation library liaise with the schools, work with other offices, and identify, okay, we really need this type of support staff in this department. This department maybe doesn't need a whole staff person, I can work with them. And you can flesh out that person, their role would be to work across all of the departments of the city and work with the private businesses and the other agencies of the city. to maximize the impact. And I think that would be something that I would be interested in looking at. And that's not to say I don't think that the Recreation Department budget is too small, because I definitely do think it's too small. If we can find a solution on both of those questions this year, or some step forward on both of those questions this year, I think that's great. But when we're talking about Access to job opportunities for adults with disabilities access to economic opportunities in general, when we're talking about programming and resources that goes beyond the school department school system. It just seems to me that someone who could bring together. all of the different parts of the city who could be working with the economic development director and the recreation department and the school system and the library would be the staff person to start with, but.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Boots on the ground who can be moved. But the concern then being if it's housed in one department, are they spending 90% of their time on that when maybe Yeah, I'm not saying on purpose, just because of the inherent nature of the structure, right?
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: This is why we're here. And I wonder, to that point, we have the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion office. And I think the purpose of that office is to be across the city, right.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm wondering if that's the next step. I'm putting it out there. I'm not saying make the None of us, we will all work together to get someone else to make a decision.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I get it. And the reason I bring up that office though is that You have a manager of the office who has access to a lot of resources, but not a lot of ability to implement on the ground because the staff isn't there. But you also don't have, if it sounds like a concern, I don't want to put words in your mouth, of wanting this person to be able to go across different programming. And I bet REC could use a full-time person 100% of the time for inclusion specialists, but the issue being if we only have one. It doesn't hit all those other things. So that's why I just throw out that idea, because it is kind of, in a sense, I think the office is intended to be that office that can go across.
[Zac Bears]: And I know for one of Frances's biggest things talking to us, budget season or otherwise is, I'd love to be doing all this other stuff, but I feel like all I can do is give people, point them in a direction. Right. And I think too, right, we have also, you know, someone to loop in here would be or to think about too is the community affairs director Lisa in the mayor's office.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm just thinking off the top of my head to your point about manage versus like ability to implement and put the boots on the ground. you know, you have the director of diversity, equity, inclusion of director of community affairs, they have that kind of they can do the management piece. And then, you know, have this person be able to be not doing all that.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, to that point, I think structurally right, even if you're allowed, you could use the whole time just on one department, right?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think we've seen across the board.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just I just want to make the point that I think across the board it's like we've seen places of success and then places where they've been letdowns right and I think that's the, if we're not spreading the system, I'm sure more letdowns than not right and I'll let you know how it goes in adulthood. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I mean that our first meeting we were talking about. jobs, you know, what does it mean for someone to be able to have, you know, not just a job, but a job with a pipe, a pipeline and a growth opportunity to be able to live in Medford for a long time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: I know we're gonna go to Kevin. Would you mind just hitting the mic for this. It echoes when that one's on. You're good off great. I'm just really quickly I wanted to know right. It sounds like some ideas got thrown around within City Hall and based on the information available at the time, some folks made some suggestions about what might be best. I don't think decisions were made but I also think it's important. that we make it clear that decisions weren't made because of how processes have gone in the past. So I just wanted to put that out there. And I appreciate what you're saying about maybe it's looking like a couple positions. And again, I really think, to everyone's point here, figuring out What is the process for developing exactly what we think is needed as this first initial step and then how that continues to grow and what the accountability system is for that like how are we going to continue to have that conversation, like my mind immediately went to. the discussion we've had tonight into job descriptions, and then to Shanine's point, reasonable job descriptions for people to do, and making sure that we do that in a way where we're going through the process so that everyone is included in the creation of those things. But again, I defer. Thank you for giving me time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Scarpelli. And thanks to everyone who's spoken tonight. I think, you know, we're talking about a lot of different things. And I think your point's incredibly well taken that a piece of the big piece of this is what's the accountability and the mobilization and activating existing resources and using them in a better way. to the point, you know, once we've done as much of that as we can, or not necessarily in sequence, but in parallel, getting new resources to the table, and then making sure that everything's working in partnership. And so, and I appreciate this programming that we're working on. I actually really appreciate the regional approach, because I think it brings more resources to the table. There's obviously upsides and downsides to that too that we could talk about for a long time. But in general, how we move from here. Personally, I would make a motion that we keep this paper in committee. We actually have an initial budget meeting committee of the whole next week and several more over the next couple of months. And we keep this in committee so that we can bring it up during those budget meetings. We could, you know, as folks who are working on this say, okay, folks are available this meeting, we can get it on the agenda, keep it on the agenda for that. So I would make that motion, but I also wanna leave the floor open to whatever other next steps folks think we need to move on.
[Zac Bears]: The amendment is the recreation department establish a parent working group and for recreation programming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and then I think there's this other piece. I don't know how to word it.
[Zac Bears]: be that point person for every other department in the city that's working with recreation so yeah and i just want to make the point that that i think we should empower council i mean councillor callahan absolutely with that the parents have been working on it and the staff have been working on it so far to keep can be to I think you know, however, however, you want to phrase it to convene that in a concrete way.
[Zac Bears]: Anyway, school committee member all apply school committee member.
[Zac Bears]: City Council fourth regular meeting February 25 2025 is called order Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 25033 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family, friends and loved ones of Ruth Youngblood. She was a fixture in the West Medford neighborhood and West Medford Community Center, and her vibrant presence will be missed by so many people in our Medford community. I put this resolution forward, I first met Ruth early on in my first campaign for running for city council. And we had a lot of great conversations. And I also was able to buy a lot of wonderful cards from her over the years and I still have a few left that are going to have a little bit of extra memory as I send them out that I'm going to probably hold them a little closer and think of a special occasion to send them out before I do. So, with that I will go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Collins, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Is there a motion to join papers 25034, Oh three four and oh three five by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Please call Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. I'll read them both and then I will go to Councilor Scarpelli. 25034 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones of Robert Emmett Skerry Jr. He'll be remembered for his long service as a member of the Medford School Committee and his dedication to the students of the Medford Public Schools. And we have 25035, whereas the Medford City Council mourns the passing of Robert Emmett Bob Skerry Jr., a lifelong resident of Medford, Massachusetts, who passed away peacefully on February 13th, 2025, at the age of 74, following a courageous two-year battle with cancer. And whereas Bob Skerry was a proud graduate of Medford High School, class of 1968, and furthered his education at UMass Boston, formerly Boston State College, earning a degree in political science and English, He continued his academic pursuits at Harvard University Graduate School of Education, obtaining a certificate in School and Community Relationships, reflecting his lifelong commitment to learning and public service. And whereas Bob served honorably as a member of the 101st Engineers Battalion and the Massachusetts National Guard, demonstrating his dedication to both the Commonwealth and the nation. And whereas Bob dedicated his career to education and public service, working as a teacher in Everett and Medford public school systems, where he taught civics, social studies, and English, and coached varsity soccer. He furthered his impact on the community through over four decades of service in the city government, particularly as a dedicated member of the Medford School Committee and an active participant in the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and whereas in his professional career Bob served as a senior investigator with the Bureau of Special Investigations for the Office of the State Auditor for over 35 years, upholding the values of accountability and integrity in public service. And whereas Bob was a devoted friend, neighbor, and mentor who touched the lives of many through his generosity, wisdom, and kindness, he was deeply committed to his beloved friend and partner, Maria C. DeMarco, and shared a special bond with her daughter, Margaret Meg DeMarco, her wife Claire, and their children Avery, Emerson, and Sloan, whom he cared for as if they were his own grandchildren. He's also beloved brother, uncle and cousin cherishing his relationships with his family, and whereas Bob scary was a passionate supporter of his community, often lending a helping hand to neighbors advocating for local causes and celebrating Menford spirit he was an ardent fan of the Boston Red Sox BC Eagles and Notre Dame fighting Irish His love for Medford, his faith, and his country remain steadfast throughout his life, and whereas Bob's legacy of service and kindness and unwavering dedication to the City of Medford will be felt for generations to come, and he'll be deeply missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council hereby honors the life and legacy of Robert Emmett Bob Skerry Jr., and expresses its deepest condolences to his family and loved ones, and recognizes his extraordinary contributions to the City of Medford, And be it for the resolve of the Medford City Council dedicates this meeting in his honor, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, I'll go to Vice President Collins. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before we take the vote, if we could, well, let's take the vote and then we'll take a moment of silence for everybody. So if we could call the roll on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seventy affirmative, negative, the motion passes. If everyone could please rise for a moment of silence. Records the records of the meeting of February 11, 2025 or past Council is our Council is our Oh, how did you find those records. I found them in order and emotion to approve the motion of Councilors are to approve the record seconded by Councilor Callahan was called the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees 24033, Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, February 12, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes 24468 offered by Councilor Tseng, Governance Committee, February 19th, 2025. Report to follow, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: and that committee of the whole is next Tuesday at 6pm. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. This should be in petitions presentations similar papers, my apologies I didn't catch that. But this is 25032 proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway for referral to the Community Development Board. This is from the petitioner at 10 and 20 Revere Beach Parkway, we have Valerie Moore. from Dr. MacLennan and Fish on behalf of the petitioner. I'm just going to summarize it and say that they are representing Transom Real Estate, the applicant looking to have an amendment to the text of the Wellington Station Multifamily Overlay District, WSMOD. and they have proposed a redline amendment. This is the property consists of two parcels which are currently owned by Houlihan Properties and 10 Revere Beach Parkway LLC petitioners, both of which consent to the petition. Essentially the three clarifications that are being requested First, the table of dimensional standards establishes a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The petitioners property as well as others on the fells winter rear beach parkway is subject to a perpetual deed restriction held by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation that requires a minimum setback of 20 feet. So they're requesting that that be clarified a footnote that if there's a property subject to a public agency. restriction that the maximum setbacks would coincide with that restriction. Second, there's a development incentive bonuses. It currently reads a certified LEED Gold or LEED Platinum. The petitioners are proposing a modification from certified to certifiable because the LEED certification can't happen until the building is constructed. And the third is definitions section clarifying the definition of building coverage to make clear it does not include building overhangs. They're arguing that the current definition is ambiguous on this point. Right now, the only thing before us is to refer this to community development board as it's a zoning amendment. I will say I've spoken to the planning department staff on the first two of these items and those are changes that we were planning to make as part of the zoning updates project anyway. So I can't speak to the third change, although it seems to me on its face reasonable. So tonight we would refer this to Community Development Board, and then they would refer it back to us with any recommendations and conditions. And with that, I'll recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and I do wanna offer, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then I do wanna offer the petitioner a chance to take a look before we move forward. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so procedurally, what would happen is we receive it, we refer it to Community Development Board, which we're obligated to do, and then they'll schedule the public hearings of the CD board and work with the clerk to schedule a public hearing for us. Butters will be notified of the public hearings, and then the public hearings will go forward.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. Do we have a representative of the petitioner? Great. Just want to give you guys a chance to speak to the petition.
[Zac Bears]: And thank you. If you'd like to Councilor, if you'd like to share anything you're on. Yes, you are. The red is good in this case.
[Zac Bears]: Great. That was going to be my question or clarification, just to elucidate the process. Even if this zoning amendment moves through all the phases and is adopted, then you would have your project proposal, which would go through site plan review for the specific project with all the studies and the comment and the process at that point. That's great. Can you tell that we've been doing a zoning update for the past 18 months? And honestly, it feels like for me for the past like five years.
[Zac Bears]: I was like, oh, this again. But no, thank you for bringing this to us. I know we'll have another chance to talk to you during the public hearing if the Community Development Board sends this back to us. So thanks for being here.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to refer this to the Community Development Board. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Thank you. All right, our next petition, petition for a CV license, common victims license, Kelly's roast beef. They were here last time. Do we have a representative this time? Yes, we do. All right. So I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli to talk about this petition.
[Zac Bears]: We can go.
[Zac Bears]: Any other comments for anyone else? I guess, are you guys representing the new venture that has purchased Kelly's?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Could you just go into like, are you guys still pretty local or?
[Zac Bears]: And so you guys have already built and operated some, and now you've purchased the originals. Correct. Great. And do you think there might be a potential for an extended hours at some point?
[Zac Bears]: You can feel free to send back that some of us would like that. OK.
[Zac Bears]: It didn't come from George. Oh, yeah. Can we have your names just for the record? Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And you can use the business address if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Well, thank you. We see everything in order and the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, the negative, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody. Did we have King Boba last time? Okay. I, again, I apologize for that. So we'll just move beyond that. They've already been approved. For some reason, I got it in my head that we didn't have anyone here. All right, communications from the mayor. 25028, loan order, MWRA water bonds. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following loan order. City of Medford, loan order, MWRA water bonds, that $8 million is appropriated for the purpose of replacing lead service lines and galvanized requiring replacement and addressing service lines of unknown materials in various locations throughout the city. Eligible for financial assistance to the MWRA's lead replacement program including payment of any and all costs incidental and related thereto that to meet this appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow the set amount under and pursuant to chapter 44 section 7 and 8 of the general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority and to issue bonds or notes of the city therefore that the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow a portion, all or a portion of such amount from the MWRA pursuant to the MWRA's local water system assistance program and in connection therewith enter into a loan agreement and or financial assistance agreement with the MWRA and otherwise to contract with the MWRA with respect to such loan and for any grants or aid available for the project or the financing thereof. and that the mayor is authorized to accept and expend any grants or aid available for the project or for the financing thereof and provided that the amount of the authorized borrowing for the project shall be reduced by the amount of any such grants or aid received. I was really seeking a period there and it never came. So I'll just read the rest and further ordered that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to qualify under Chapter 44A of the General Law as any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order and provide such information and execute such documents as such officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. And we have here as well the loan order opinion, KP Law. In our opinion, the loan order It is in proper legal form. And I'm not going to read that whole letter. I'll go to you guys, Commissioner McGibbon, Engineer Wartoff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a quick question clarification. So we have what's on record and you're saying based on some early estimates, it feels like that, or some stuff that you've already looked at, the records are just not accurate.
[Zac Bears]: So we're their top priority.
[Zac Bears]: Just two more quick clarifications about one of my fellow colleagues. Some of the slow money would pay for the analysis? Yes. OK. And then the rest of it would go towards the removal and replacement.
[Zac Bears]: And the statistical analysis is in that 10%? Correct. Great. These loans will be repaid by the rate payers or the taxpayers?
[Zac Bears]: Through the Enterprise Fund only?
[Zac Bears]: OK. So this is a bond for the Enterprise Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. I will go to yes. Is this about what I just said? Okay, I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then you, and then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just quick clarification. Did the denial start coming out?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And I'm guessing you would agree with the statement that The point of this is to avoid any potential future issue, not address a current issue of health or safety.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I did have one clarifying question. If records were lost, I'm sure a lot of residents have had work done on their homes at some point. Is there a mechanism for them to communicate to you? Like if they got a letter to say, oh, we had a plumber in, we have a, you know, the plumber looked at the line. Is that useful information? Is that information you can even use or is it just kind of hearsay?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And just to, again, just for my brain to understand, The MWRA is giving out essentially a 25% discounted loan for this purpose because the regulations are so stringent around this specific issue. And that's what, like, if you could get this for mains, you would, but it's not offered because the regulations aren't requiring replacement of old mains in the same way.
[Zac Bears]: What would make it more correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And, and the, and the bonds, the previous bond, it was zero interest, but there wasn't like 25% rebate or. Correct. Okay. Councilor Collins and Councilor
[Zac Bears]: And it also sounded like most of the lead, only 30% to 40% of the lead are actually lead. So most of the leads aren't lead.
[Zac Bears]: So you might have a record that says it was lead and then it was replaced, but that second record got burned in a fire. So you're calling it lead, but it actually got replaced.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And I think also just should be noted, just to reiterate your point, it's not always the line. It could be fixtures or something else in the house. Be systemic about it. We just saw at the middle schools, right? The lines are probably fine, but you had some fixtures with issues. Yeah. Usually is. OK. Great. Any further questions on this? We can motion to approve for first reading or we can motion to approve for third reading with if there's no objection. We can't do it with a loan or needs three. Okay. All right. So the motion would be to approve the first reading if there is one on the motion of councilor Callahan, seconded by councils are to approve for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think I'm going to have a motion passes. Thank you. 25.029 wage adjustment for the traffic supervisors union respectfully request and recommend approve the following amendments traffic supervisors effective July 1 2024.5% note that this union received 2% on 630 2024 July 1 2025 2% July 1 2026 2% July 1 2027 2% so is there a motion to or do we have any further discussion on yep Yes, this is the union contract agreed with the traffic supervisors.
[Zac Bears]: A motion of Councilor Scarpelli to waive the three readings and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I have the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. 25.03.0, Community Preservation Committee Appropriation Request. Cross-Street Cemetery Monument Restoration Phase One. On behalf of the CPC, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendation. requesting 5,000 from the CPA historic reserve to the cemetery trustees of the historical commission for phase one of the cross streets emissary monument restoration project respectively submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn. We do have manager Dupont, vice chair Hayward. And I did just want to also note that there were some other funds going towards this project. We have a motion to approve by councilor Scarpelli, seconded by councilor Sang. It sounds like it's going through. Do you wanna raise your hands to say anything or are y'all good with that? I'm seeing shaking heads on the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I have affirmative and negative motion passes. Thanks you guys. 25 or three one submitted my brain occurred if we do this in one minute I would have bet with the clerk home real petition institutional master plans I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following home real petition and transmit the general court for their consideration. This is an act granting the city of Medford the authority to require the adoption of institutional master plan subject to the review and approval of the municipality. This is, I think, the fourth refiling of this Home Rule petition, and essentially would allow the city to require that large-scale institutional facilities, for example, a Tufts University, that they have to provide a master plan to the city, and that the city can impose institutional master plan review to regulate the use of land or structures for land owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by hospitals, healthcare institutions, colleges, universities, and nonprofit educational corporations. I will go to what looks to be Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins and submit this to the legislature, seconded by Councilor Tseng. I saw your request, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, and I also am in favor. I'm, you know, continually frustrated by the exemptions that especially large institutions get from the basic processes and procedures that this community asks of every other member of the community, down to the 3,000 square foot lot owner. Nevermind that Tufts has a budget of you know, many attend or more times the size of the city of Medford and endowment certainly bigger than any sort of reserve fund that the city of Medford has and the ability to leverage all of that to their advantage in addition to their legal protections. So very supportive of this. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro and then we do a public participation on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go now to public participation. We have a hand on Zoom. name and address for the record, please. And once I'm here, you'll have three minutes. One second. Here you go. Matthew Page.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? No, I owe the clerk one piece of candy. That man always has them and he's not here to defend it. So, all right. On the motion of vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Sang. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, motion passes. That brings us to public participation. Is there anyone in the chambers or on Zoom who would like to speak on any matter to their heart's content for three minutes? Seeing none, is there any further motion by members of the council? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, um, I think the main takeaway from the comments we received in my review, um, and just a review of the charter study committee report, um, and what many other communities in Massachusetts do. Uh, my main question on four one is, let me just make sure it's in here. Um, both the question of the mayor serving on the school committee in general, and specifically that the mayor automatically is the chair, given the views that I've had of the other charters, my reading of the Charter Study Committee, some of the survey results, some of the comments, and the comments from our sitting school committee members, it seems to me that the way this is currently written doesn't really reflect the direction that the community talked about going. And I would like to at least have a discussion about the mayor serving as the chair versus the school committee being able to elect its own chair and potentially also the service of the mayor in general. But after we discuss this section and pending results of the discussion, I'm likely to make a motion to suggest that the may or serve as a member, but that the body be able to elect its own chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tsang. I think just to apply the discussion that we've had here and what we've heard from everybody, The most important thing that I think we need to remember is there are two, essentially two organizations. in Medford that make up the government of Medford. There's the city of Medford and there's the Medford Public Schools. The chief executive officer of the Medford Public Schools is the superintendent of the Medford Public Schools, who is appointed by the school committee, which serves a combined executive legislative function, which is different than the city council, which serves a legislative function only with the executive function of the city in the role and the hands of the mayor. When we have a mayor who is the chair of the school committee, chairing, guiding the executive committee, who oversees then the superintendent, who is the appointed chief executive, you essentially have, I think, what is that, what former member Hays said, that divided division of attention between the two organizations. There's an assumption that the mayor can run the schools. I think it actually, in many ways, can disempower a superintendent. to have a mayor, not just being the chief executive of the city of Medford, but also being the chair of the executive committee of the Medford Public Schools. And I'm not speaking to this mayor or the last mayor or the mayor before in any specific way, but exercising, whether intentionally or unintentionally, powers beyond the role of a member of the school committee. And that, I think, is the fundamental question here. We need to understand that there are two institutions that we're talking about, the city of Medford, which is governed by the mayor and the city council, and the Medford Public Schools, which is governed by the school committee. And I think the arguments made that having the mayor serve as the chair of the school committee creates potential conflicts or division of attention or whatever other frame or set of words we want to put to it. is valid. So I would move, make a motion that we amend the draft charter to keep the mayor as a serving voting member of the school committee, but not serving as the chair and to update the sections as needed to reflect that change.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to not have the mayor serve as the chair of the school committee, but to remain as a voting member of the school committee. Further motion to update all relevant sections of the charter to reflect this change.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you chair saying my really my only comment on this is that I think this is a great structure. And that's why I think it should apply across the board. And that's why those were the proposals that I made. So I really appreciate the work of the charter study committee and developing this approach to local representation here in our community. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. I think what we're getting to here is suggestions that proposals come from not a place of good faith. And I think that's toxic and I think that's divisive. I think we all agree that greater representation is a key goal of a new charter. I've said that since the beginning of, before I even thought about running for office. How we get to greater representation, we have an honest disagreement on. I think when we talk about this question of voter competency, I don't think member Ruseau's questioning voter competency, I think it's, completely unfair to say that the structure of government doesn't impact the ability of the voter to understand their government. And I think that's a good faith comment. Now, no one generally likes it when I say this, but I did go to school for this and I did study this and I have studied extensively models of government. And it's just not true to say that the way that a government is structured doesn't impact a person's understanding of how they participate with that government. And I don't think it's true to say that everything in the Charter Study Committee's recommended draft is the perfect way to increase representation. If we make any changes to it, then you're against increasing representation. I just don't think that's true. I think we have honest disagreements about what it means to structure the government of the city of Medford. and the governance body of the Medford Public Schools. I think we have honest disagreements about what it means to have more representation. I don't want to call you out here, Chair Tseng, but you've said very directly, at least in some comments that I've heard recently, that as the one person of color sitting on this committee, who I think does deeply value racial diversity and representation, and also has studied this maybe at a better school than me for more time than me more recently than me, that you don't necessarily agree that what was proposed achieves the goal. It's an honest disagreement. This is the process. The study committee has put together its recommendation, this council, and as a councillor, this is my job. I have to put my name and my vote to a recommended charter that will go to the mayor, that will go to the people, and the people will vote. I don't come at this from any other position than I am making the proposals and thoughts that I think will create a structure of government that advances and increases representation for the people and that will serve this community for years to come. And I think if we go as we have been the past few meetings down this road, that it is not from that perspective that we are all approaching this fine, but that's what's toxic and divisive. And that's what's going to make it harder to pass the charter. And again, as I said, in my remarks to the state of the city, I cannot wait to vote on a new charter for the city. The charter that we have now does not work. I really deeply appreciate the work of the study committee to put together a proposal that I think by and large, even if every change I wanted to make, which is not going to happen because that's not how this works, 90% of it would remain intact with no changes at all. I think we're going to end up with a good product out of this committee, a good product out of committee of the whole good product out of the council that will go to the mayor that will go to the legislature who I have spoken to who said this is going to move forward. Your changes are not out of the scope of this process. And I hope that that's the result that we get. But I think the more that we have the conversation with the idea that this body should not be able to, or should not make specific changes because they are for some reason other than the reason that people are stating, that's what's going to derail this process. So again, we have an honest disagreement about how to increase representation and what a new charter looks like. And I'm putting forward what I believe increases representation based on the research of everything that I've read, which includes the entire study committee report, my five years of experience serving on this council, my 10 years service experience in state and local government in this community, my four years of education on political systems and structures, and the opinions that we're hearing from the people who are speaking here. We can keep going down the road and we can keep ascribing motive to people that are not the motives that they have, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. President Bears. Thank you, Chair Tseng. I do have an open mind. We change things all the time in this body based on the things that we discuss and the things that we talk about. The proposal that I came forward with was amended on this floor. when we talk about listening to the whole community, we can listen to the whole community. And I don't mean to spot member Van der Kloot here, but you had a great line when we were in a very, very tense time in the city and you had many, many intense meetings about a name change for a school. And I'm probably going to botch the specific line, but I think the gist of it was we are listening. We just don't agree. That's the gist of it. You said it better. We had that conversation. If we were to listen to everybody in this community, 100%, every single member, every single person would require me and George and Milva to agree 100% on everything and create a document that we all perfectly agree on. We don't agree. So we can't do that. The voters put us here. This is the city council that has to review this charter. We have been put here to do our duty to the best of our ability. And I fundamentally believe that's what we're doing. I believe that's what you're doing, Councilor Scarpelli. I believe you're representing what you believe to be the best approach, the best path forward. I also believe that of myself and Councilor Lazzaro. I believe it of Chair McDonald. I believe it of Mr. Chivino. I believe it of everybody in this room. And I believe that compelling arguments can be made to change people's minds. I, for example, haven't heard any councilor say that because member Graham and member Rousseau said it, we should have all at large or that the mayor shouldn't be on the committee at all. And those changes weren't proposed. So when we, when we put this stuff forward, I mean, it's just an honest disagreement. And I, you know, I asked the voters to listen as well. If you want, if you are a single issue voter on the charter and you want a different outcome on the charter than what's good, what may or may not come out of this committee, then you should ask the people who you want to elect what their opinion exactly is to the letter and have them follow it. As someone who wrote the platform that's now been brought up twice around this question, it didn't say there shall be eight ward representatives and three at-large representatives and that is the only system by which we will follow. If you read the full paragraph in the context of the Men for People's platform from 2023, it talks about representation and it has a context of having more local representation. And there were honest disagreements in the people who drafted that platform, honest disagreements in the interpretation of the people who are seeing it now about what it meant. And you know, whatever, throw it in our face. I should have seen that. And I should have added a little more nuance to something that's highly nuanced. My bad, use it against me. It's okay. As I've done here for the past five years and hope to continue to do as long as the voters will have me, I'm gonna do what I think is right and what I think gets us the best outcome. So we can keep throwing stuff around to the other effect. It's not gonna get us anywhere. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just the third recommendation under comment 13 by Member Ruseau, the appointment of subcommittees and move to adopt that language or to strike that language as well.
[Zac Bears]: I'll amend my motion to just adopt the changes proposed by Member Ruseau and comment 13.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Sang. And I'm going to send any motions that I make tonight to you, to the assistant clerk, and to the clerk. We'll have it in some form. I'll BCC myself, so I'll have a backup copy. But I'm moving to adopt the comments, suggested changes in comment 13 by member Ruseau. So that's that the chair will produce the agenda, the questions of order line, and also that the chair appoints the members to the subcommittees.
[Zac Bears]: I just more have a question. maybe for the Collins Center, it does look like this is different from the prohibitions in the other sections, and that it allows someone to return to, let me see if I can get this exactly right. If a city officer or other employee who has vacated a position in order to serve as a member may return to the same office or position of employment, held at the time of the position was vacated if it has remained vacant, but shall not be eligible for any other municipal position. I was just wondering what the use case was for that. If our call-in center representatives could, I'm guessing it's just standard language that got incorporated, but I'm wondering why it's there for the school committee and not for the council or for like the mayor. It seems to imply that there may be a position that someone might vacate to then serve on the school committee that they would then return to. And I'm just not sure what that is. Could you, sorry, could you just come to the podium? Four three, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: You're not sure why it's there?
[Zac Bears]: What would the case be for that? Is it like if I just can't think of the case as someone holding open the football coach position or the the recreation director or the, you know, or.
[Zac Bears]: Now, does it mean if it's still available or if no one had ever filled it? Because that's my, as I read this, it would mean that no one had ever filled it in the interim.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So that's why I'm just. It just seems so specific to me that to make an exception, maybe it just doesn't make sense. I agree that it sounds theoretical. I just think it should apply universally or not at all. And I just don't really see a situation where someone says I'm serving in this role, but I'm running for school committee. And then they're coming, I guess is the idea that like if a teacher ran for school committee, they wanted to be a teacher again. And so it wouldn't necessarily need to be like their specific position. It could just be that a vacancy in the teaching force is there. So they don't have to have a one year cooling off period.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Cause that's the other piece of this where I read it just a little bit. You know, is it only that the high school US history teacher can return to the high school US history teacher position or right?
[Zac Bears]: Right, no, but does this allow that or not allow it? It's more what I'm not clear on.
[Zac Bears]: It shows up in many charters, okay. It seems really technical. I'm not gonna belabor it anymore. I don't have a problem with striking it and just having it be a one year cooling off period for everybody. Is that a motion?
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is actually more convoluted than that. Not that I think that was pretty. It seems to me as I read this but it says in the Council section to dash nine. It says that the Councilor cannot hold the city office or appointed city employment for one year. It then says in 3-1 of the mayor, no former mayor shall hold any compensated appointment or city office for one year. But then it says under the school committee, no member of the school committee shall hold any city office or employment for one year, except if they're going back to some other position that they had before and that position is still vacant. So that's the inconsistency.
[Zac Bears]: The only thing I'm considering proposing is saying, make it the same for all three. No one can serve for a year regardless of position and not have this special exception just to the school committee that says that they could return back to something whereas a Councilor or a mayor could not. So keep it in that there's a one year cooling off but not have this additional language around the school committee that doesn't exist in the other two sections. If that makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I would just move to strike after the semicolon beginning with the word provided, and then it's consistent across all three bodies.
[Zac Bears]: I think the proposal from Member Ruseau is technical or clerical, just changing the word department to the word system. So I would support moving that, but if you want to read Member Graham's, I would think we should have a conversation about this. I have some questions about it.
[Zac Bears]: I have a question for our representatives from the Collins Center. It seems like there's a question from member Graham around the words upon recommendation of the superintendent in section four, five, subsection B, subsection one, upon the recommendation of the superintendent to establish and appoint these following positions as authorized by general law. And I guess I'm just wondering, does that, member Graham seems to be saying that the hiring of those positions is by the school committee and that having the words upon the recommendation of the superintendent would reduce the authority that the school committee would have relative to the general law. And I'm wondering, is that, is that how you interpret this? I just, I think we should get into that a little bit more.
[Zac Bears]: I guess my question is if there were three resumes and the superintendent made a recommendation of one, but the school committee wanted to choose another person, would the school committee still be able to do that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: No, I mean, that's kind of how I'm interpreting it too. Because right before that it says subject only to policy guidelines and directives adopted by the school committee. And it seems to me that if the school committee wanted to define a policy guideline and directive that they wanted to consider only the recommendations of the superintendent, they could do that. But that by putting it in, it adds language that could be interpreted differently depending on the different person involved or litigation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think if it's internal, then we should strike the phrase and just keep it internal and not have it be a potentially conflicted
[Zac Bears]: I would move, yeah, just to strike that language, since it seems to be covered under the previous phrase, if the school committee wants to have that process. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just no, just to that comment.
[Zac Bears]: No, just that this comes from, it seems like this all stems from chapter 71, section 59, which has a third way of defining this. It says, upon the recommendation, the school committee may also establish and appoint these positions or self-report to, but that the school committee shall, then the next phrase is the school committee shall approve or disapprove of the hiring of said positions. And given what our friends from Collins Center said was that basically this is internal to the process that the school committee is setting up anyway. I think we're having a convoluted argument about trying to do the same thing. Could you explain further what clarification is being asked?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it sounds like we should get a recommendation from counsel to the school committee as to specific language to clarify the different sourcings of all of the different possible interpretations of this. So I amend my motion to request a specific language be proposed by counsel to the school committee or that they suggest language that addresses their concerns.
[Zac Bears]: I was just going to make the motion to make the clerical change.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears? I think the question here over what we currently have is a question of a public hearing. What does that mean? and requiring action to be taken. Right now, any one resident can put a petition on or just come to a meeting and say whatever they want. So this would actually significantly raise the bar on that front requiring 25 signatures, et cetera. But I think the question is, about requiring action, what is a public hearing? Right now, public hearings are clearly defined. We do them for zoning. We do them for petitions for specific special permits. So it just seems to me to be, I don't know if it seems to be trying to enshrine in the charter process that is potentially more onerous than the existing process that we have now by the city council rules which this council hasn't voted to adjust so. Yeah, I certainly think if we're talking about having a public hearing and requiring action right now, the only people who can put anything on the city council agenda are members of the city council and the mayor. And this significantly reduces that. So the threshold I think should be a question. And then I think it's also a question of how it changes existing public participation processes where right now you can go to the clerk's office as an individual and file a petition to appear under public participation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Do you have a list of like generally what these thresholds are?
[Zac Bears]: 50 or a hundred.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we'll hear both. We hear from people on one. No signatures needed in a single paper right now. I just think this raises the level of a hearing and an action and a time period.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. So OK. So it's generally 50 to 100 in a community of this size?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just a hypothetical. if the, what if someone put a petition in that said, we believe that the council, we don't like the mayor, the mayor's doing a bad job, so we believe the council should use its authority under the charter to remove the mayor. How, I guess the question is who, we're coming back to the determination of if there are some things that this can apply to and some things that it can't apply to, you know, that should probably be listed in the charter so that residents don't think that an arbitrary decision is being made based on their specific petition, but that there's actually a specific category of exemptions and that's already exists here in the ineligible provisions for the other citizen initiative recommendations. I'm just saying like, if we're saying that there are certain personnel related things that you couldn't file a free petition for, then what's the list of things that this applies to and doesn't apply to because otherwise to be quite frank as the chair, I'm gonna get blamed either by the public or by members of this council for picking and choosing.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So the law department would determine what's eligible and ineligible?
[Zac Bears]: And where would residents be able to point to, or where would I be able to point residents to say, here's what a proper subject is or isn't for a public hearing?
[Zac Bears]: I could share the legal opinion, but then they're just going to say the legal opinion is biased or the chair wrote a biased opinion with the legal department. I'm just saying there has to be a way that we can point residents to a clear set of conditions that doesn't end up pointing back to my free speech has been quashed, you know, arguments, which we hear all the time.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I hear I just want to be clear here that this isn't actually free petition. Because even if someone submits the signatures, then the law department gets to look through all of the general laws and decide, well, it doesn't actually apply. And I guess my other point is, are we actually then going to be sending every single one of these to the law department to make a determination who makes that choice?
[Zac Bears]: I think you would be surprised at the level of misrepresentations of people's character that's happened based on decisions like this recently here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. We have had, I could probably point to 10 to 15 instances in the last 24 months where the questions that I'm asking have been raised over and over again to make arguments that procedural decisions were actually political or personal decisions. And so I'm asking, what is an unbiased resource that we could point to in this section to make sure that accusations can't be hurled?
[Zac Bears]: OK. So that these shall all be reviewed by the law department, and these will be allowed if they're not constrained by the general law, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: Has this been reviewed since the Shurtleff decision? since the Supreme Court decision around Shurtleff and creating public spaces, and since the Supreme Judicial Court's determination, has this template language been reviewed?
[Zac Bears]: You don't have one right now.
[Zac Bears]: their guidance on issues of similar, and this is the reason why I think we're belaboring the point, their guidance on similar topics has been essentially, if you create a public forum, so for example, if you allow groups to fly, individual private groups to fly a flag on City Hall, you have to allow anyone to fly any flag. So I guess the question is, what is the interface here? If we create this public forum and we're saying right now that the law says, well, you can't discuss personal attacks or personnel matters or this X, Y, and Z, but another law and a Supreme Court decision says, if you're restricted at all, you're limiting the first amendment, where does that line get drawn? And our council seems to be, the council we have right now seems to be leaning towards, there's no limit. So, That's just where my question comes from.
[Zac Bears]: Oh. I could ask to turn up the Zoom audio more. I've been able to follow along with the captions relatively well, but I'll ask Sarah to turn up the Zoom. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm more amenable to actually what Councilor Scarpelli said. Personally, I was just looking up a number of other communities and I'd like to look at a threshold of 100, but I also think that we should not dictate this for the school committee It's been made pretty clear through their actions and their rules that they have an opinion here. I'm happy to do this for the city council. Somerville's draft charter from their charter review has a section 211 group petitions just for the city council. It doesn't define this process for the school committee. So that would be something I would be comfortable with. And I've taken some language from the Somerville petition, Somerville charter draft, and some from the Charter Study Committee's recommendations to create a proposal for an amended section. But I've also heard from colleagues that they may want to take a different path than what Councilor Scarpelli and I have discussed.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think to Councilor Lazzaro's comment or other vote leaves it pretty open. But I also, again, and this is where I come back to with the school committee, the school committee is an executive body and a legislative body. And this is where my concern comes back in. They have authority over contracts, authority over personnel matters, authority over certain appointments. I mean, significantly expanded executive authority compared to this body as a council being solely legislative. And I would note similarly, so there's no sort of free petition to the mayor proposed here to petition any sort of executive authority on the city side of things. So that's, again, where my concern comes in. The definition of measure here as applied to the school committee certainly could be, I think, read incredibly expansively into executive authority. you know, executive actions by the executive. I mean, there are quasi executive legislative committee that makes, I mean, essentially runs the Metro Public Schools. So it's just that between that reality and this definition of measure, I think applying this section equally to the both bodies creates unintended consequences potentially.
[Zac Bears]: That I don't feel like I know enough about how they work to answer that question. Did you have a?
[Zac Bears]: I would propose an amendment to the motion on the floor, the first motion on the floor to amend the language have the title to read group petitions, which is what the Somerville Charter proposal says, and then amend the language to read as follows. The City Council shall hold a public hearing and act with respect to every petition which is addressed to it, which is signed by at least 100 municipal voters as certified by the Board of Election Commissioners. along with their addresses, and that seeks the passage of a measure. Once received, the petition shall be reviewed by the city's legal department to ensure it does not conflict with any provisions of general law regarding public hearings and legally permissible topics thereof. If approved for consideration, a hearing shall be held by the city council or a committee or a subcommittee thereof, and the city council shall act on the petition within three months of filing with the city clerk. Hearings on two or more petitions filed under this section may be held at the same time and place. At least 14 days before the hearing, the city clerk shall notify 10 petitioners whose names first appear on each such petition, publish a general summary of the subject matter of the petition, and post notice of the date and time of the public hearing. hearing should not be held on any subject more than once in a given 12 month period as determined by the council president.
[Zac Bears]: It's a combination of the Somerville Charter, which I know you guys worked on, and the Charter Study Committee's proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Reword how that, I phrased that? Yeah. Okay, if you have a better phrasing, I'm happy to take that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So something after the signatures are received, before the hearing is scheduled, some sort of legal review, and you guys can come up with that in the next couple of weeks? For the legal section? Yeah, I'm fine with that. So I'll just change that. That there's some, and I mean, I just, that part I just kind of went. That I'd wordsmith myself, but the rest of it was from the two drafts. I'm happy to just change that to, I'll leave my language in there so you can see it. If it's of any value to you, it will be sent to you, but also Collins Center can draft a phrase around the legal.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, draft language. around legal review. All right, I'll put that in parentheses, if so everyone's clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm gonna send, I'm doing a document, I'll send it to everybody. But yeah, it's essentially it's city council 100 legal review and everything else basically stay the same, but there's a little extra notice to the public 14 days instead of 10.
[Zac Bears]: And they say we can't get anything done.
[Zac Bears]: There we go. Okay. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: except it doesn't pause.
[Zac Bears]: That law is in effect. So one of my things here was just trying to be consistent across the scope of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. And I think I'm guessing these are standard terminologies that are used in a lot of charters, but to me, initiative and referendum are words that often are used to mean the same thing.
[Zac Bears]: So I think it might be helpful to use different language, something like a veto or a repeal or something like that when we're talking about the referendum and something maybe some sort of positive modifier to the word initiative to indicate that it's creative in some way, just so that it's clear that there's kind of a and positive idea of an initiative versus the idea of countering the action of a body through the referendum. I just think that's a lot more legible and understandable by the average person because to me, I mean, especially if you're moving here from somewhere else and nevermind that we call ours questions and propositions and neither we don't call them initiatives or referendums when we're talking about the state ballot. I just think something that-
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah. Exactly. So, you know, just all of these interchangeable words, I think having some sort of modifier in there to more clearly elucidate the intent of each section would be helpful. And then my other question here really, and something I'd like to think about proposing is that the thresholds and the timelines be the same for all of the processes. You don't recommend that, and I'm wondering why.
[Zac Bears]: And the timeline is 40 days for the recall.
[Zac Bears]: So it's 20. I'm sorry, where's the 28 days? It's 40, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it says said recall petition shall be returned and filed within 40 days.
[Zac Bears]: And so we have 21 for the referendum, the repeal. counter. We have 40 for the recall, and then I think we had 60 or something for the initiative.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But I think that's true of all three.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think that's subjective, to be honest.
[Zac Bears]: By the way, I didn't even make my proposal yet. I'm actually suggesting more time. So 45 days for recall, 45 days for referendum, 45 days for initiative. And that way you don't have this kind of arbitrage opportunity for picking a different mode because you have more time to do one or another.
[Zac Bears]: But nothing prevents them from turning it in sooner than 45 days.
[Zac Bears]: So if they're really mad about it, I'm giving them 45 instead of 21.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I guess what I'm saying is also, though, 21 days is probably, you're just not going to be able to do it. I think my point is that if you're right, and people are really angry, and they want to get it done really fast, they'll collect all the signatures in 15 days either way. But maybe they need between 21 and 45 days to collect the signatures.
[Zac Bears]: But I think that you could make the same argument for the initiative or the recall.
[Zac Bears]: To most voters, I think a referendum is a brand new thing. I mean, we're not having a... I think this is a subjective... I really don't.
[Zac Bears]: I guess, why?
[Zac Bears]: And why is that different from something that the council passed? Most people wouldn't have seen that either.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's my experience.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we don't have great attendance at our meetings. We don't have a ton of
[Zac Bears]: Yes, but I think if you were to look at the reading, it's not like 10,000 people are taking a look at that every week that we make votes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what I'm saying is my point is I think we should have more time for all of these measures, and then it should be consistent. I don't understand.
[Zac Bears]: My rationale is that what's the difference between an initiative and a referendum? I don't see one. And I don't understand why you'd give someone who wants to stop the council from doing something less time than you would give someone who wants to create a new thing more time. I'm actually arguing against the council's power. So for people who are making faces about it, I don't understand why you wouldn't give people more time.
[Zac Bears]: that it is for them to propose a new idea. And personally, I have less of a stake in the time frames here. I just felt the consistency made sense because I think these are generally fundamentally the same things and that if a resident or a group of residents wants to try to create something or repeal something or recall an elected official, I personally wouldn't want to give them different timeframes to do that. My bigger concern is around the thresholds. I think they should all be 15%. I think that defining these thresholds differently and having a different democratic threshold for these different proposals, that does work me a little bit more than the timeframes. But I appreciate the spirit of discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair saying and Councilor Leming. Yeah, I mean, I think for this, you know, when I looked at the math You can't start a recall in the first six months. You can't start a recall in the last six months. You need 145 days, or you have between 119 and 145 days to even get it done anyway. And then you're probably holding a special election where you're probably not getting 20% turnout, if we're being honest. Um, that would be my inclination or to say that the recall should be limited to any office that has a four year term. Um, right now that would just be the mayor under this charter. Cause I just think we're talking about most likely having the city spend a bunch of money on a special election that doesn't reach the turnout and then having an election within.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. I don't know which ones do that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, yeah. That's a campaign tactic in and of itself is to say, if you don't vote, then it's invalid anyway. Yeah. And so, I mean, I think this section generally avoids the Fall River situation where, at least as far as I read it, the vacancy is you're not electing the new person on the same ballot, right? Which was the Fall River Nightmare where they were recalled, but then reelected on the same ballot. I shouldn't tell you this, but I interned with that person in Senator John Kerry's office many, many years ago. Who would have known? But that situation, I'm sure anyone could have found it out. There's, you know, lists of that. But yeah, I mean, for me, it really, I have a hard time with the recalls for the two-year terms given the conditions laid out here.
[Zac Bears]: Mildly, I don't disagree with you. I just think it's functionally essentially impossible.
[Zac Bears]: And then you might end up it seemed to be, I don't know if it seemed to me, and this was another question I had, that you could potentially end up with a recall question, and the reelection of the same seat on the same ballot. It said, let me see, like,
[Zac Bears]: If any other city elections to occur with occur within 120 days after the date of the certificate.
[Zac Bears]: What would happen in that scenario? If someone was to be, wouldn't we end up in a fall river situation where the person was recalled, so they'd be removed for... But if the person is subject to recall, this is not about the charter, this is about the community or the municipality.
[Zac Bears]: Possibly, sure. I'm just saying, isn't it possible? I mean, I think again, it's unlikely. And again, I think most of these outcomes are unlikely, but if you were to have the same office recalled on the city ballot within the next term on the ballot, you could end up in a situation where a majority of voters vote to recall, but a plurality of voters vote to elect the person for the next term.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Right. Yeah. Or what I'm saying, say for at-large, you may need your thresholds lower. So you'd end up in that situation. Yes, 50% of people said recall, but 35% said reelect Jason Correa. So it's just, again, I think it's just with the two-year piece.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So you'd end up with the second place finisher from the previous election serving the last two months. I'm just, I think the person, if such a scenario were to play out, I think the perception would be regardless of if the process and procedure was followed correctly, that the charter didn't work because someone was recalled and then reelected on the same ballot. It's just a, it's an outlier situation, but you know.
[Zac Bears]: That's I'm sure what they said in 1980, the Fall River Charter. I have one other question around eight, four ineligible measures, section, subsection three that says the, the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole, should that also say as a whole or in part? I mean, I know we don't have line item veto, but I'm guessing we don't want to give the citizen referendum process or initiative line item veto either.
[Zac Bears]: Would any appropriation be subject to referendum?
[Zac Bears]: But it wasn't a debt exclusion. It was a on the city's debt service referendum. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And so then we're subject to whatever the case law is, and we don't know, because there's not much.
[Zac Bears]: And we are already the precedent in Trustees of Tufts College versus City of Medford, which is the Dover Amendment case. And I don't want us to invite that again, because we are not happy to be that precedent. I can tell you that. Thank you for the answer. I guess my only other question here, um, Councilor Leming and I were talking about it. It may be the question he's about to ask. So I'm sorry if I'm taking your thunder away. It's just about recall. Um, is it, you know, is it worth putting that in as an ineligible measure? Uh, the recall of a city official, um, or also right. So, so it just automatically, okay. And then like, what about something that wasn't included in here was a change in the title of a city agency or a multi-member body. So let's say we went from, we've gone from the community development office to the planning development sustainability office. I can see potentially someone saying, we don't like how that's worded. Have you seen any sort of prohibitions against referendums on, on things like title changes or names?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's all I have for now. I have a couple of motions, but I'll wait to hear from everybody else.
[Zac Bears]: Do you need 50% to stay on, or they have to get 50% to kick you off? Right. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Assuming there's 20% turnout, and assuming Assuming there's 20% turnout, is this an affirmative or a negative? Is it 50% plus one of the voters voting must vote to recall? Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I have a few motions. The first motion is regarding the threshold for citizen participation mechanisms. And it would just align 8-2 and 8-3 at 15%. So the supplemental for the citizen initiative would be that the supplemental initiative petition will be signed by a number of additional voters that is not less than 10% of the total number they're taking together. The total signatures taken together shall contain the signatures of not less than 15% of the total numbers of voters in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, 5% first, and then 10% if the council doesn't take action on their item. And then similarly for the citizen referendum, also the 15%. I have two more motions. The second motion is regarding ineligible measures. I would amend three to either strike as a whole or in part or other language that the Collins Center may recommend to clarify that no portion of the budget is subject to this. My preference would be that no appropriation is subject to this provision. Before I finish making my motion, can I ask just one further question of you guys on this question of the appropriations. It sounded like between the language of the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole, an appropriation for the payment of the city's debt or debt service, an appropriation of funds to implement a collective bargaining agreement, that that only leaves this one capital appropriation that you were talking about. The Newton North case that you mentioned.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. But I will object to that. Then I would amend that motion to then be, we amend section, subsections three, four, and five, pending your review to not have these referendums or initiatives on appropriations or the budgets. And I just want that language to be clear. Then I also moved to add section 12 here for a change in title of a city agency or multi-member body.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm intending. I'm not intending anything more than that. And then finally, I would just move to request language from the Collins Center to have the recall provision apply to the Office of the Mayor only.
[Zac Bears]: And then that motion would also. And then, finally, the third motion is to edit the recalibration to apply it to the position.
[Zac Bears]: I believe it, but if you want to make an amendment here now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, so just for convenience, comment 25 from... I would propose that we adopt that amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Not usually my issue. You should be good now. Great. So I would propose adopting comment 25 and making that change.
[Zac Bears]: And I would further move that we request that the call-in center just draft language to add that the original appointing authority will appoint a replacement in case of a vacancy. And then I do have, I'll leave it.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what do you mean they all follow the structure?
[Zac Bears]: No, I think this goes back to a question I asked, I think, at our second meeting, which was, we have a button, our traffic commission is created by a special act.
[Zac Bears]: Our community development board, a special act, a couple, maybe one or two others. I might be wrong and those might just be the only two.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So would this overrule the structure as defined by special act for those bodies?
[Zac Bears]: The special acts always rule. Okay. Um, and are we, are we going to have a conversation at our committee of the whole about the different special acts governing Medford? I know you said you were kind of pulling together a list there. Is that, are we going to, I want to, I would be great to incorporate that some way into a draft charter.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Under article five of this charter.
[Zac Bears]: So article five, and now we're going down a rabbit hole that maybe we shouldn't have, but, um, so under article five, the city could.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Why would it be under article five and not by ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Now we're getting into some third order stuff here. But so the code isn't controlled by the ordinance?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. We don't have to have this conversation right now. We can have it in a couple of weeks. I appreciate the clarification. Are those the only special acts right now that you found that are going to continue?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great.
[Zac Bears]: I did have one thing on... Member Ruseau submitted some comments on section one.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I also had one thing on section 10.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair saying my one comment is in section 10-6. An Oscar and Emmy. 10-6 it says the time of taking effect the mayor will be elected to a four-year term November 2nd 2027 council composition new council be November 2nd should there also be a line school committee it doesn't say when this takes effect for the school committee oh yeah we can add that all right great thank you uh yeah well there is also just one thing
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just, I would adopt member Ruseau's comments two, three, four, and five. Okay. I'll go through them very, very quickly.
[Zac Bears]: They are, I'll read them. It is changing the definition of city agency to not include the Medford public schools, changing city officer department head to not include the Medford public schools, city website to not include the Medford public schools and exclude an advisory, add the language or the school committee to the words or an advisory committee appointed by the mayor or the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, comments 2 through 5.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think I ever introduced them, which I'm happy to read my memorandum if that's helpful.
[Zac Bears]: So there's a proposed amendment to compensation of elected officials. This would set the compensation of the mayor, city council, and school committee by charter, eliminate the authority of the city council to set compensation and have a maximum increase of 2% per year. It would end perceived conflict of interest because no elected official would be able to set their own pay or the pay of fellow elected officials at any point, even after the following election. this would establish a maximum increase of 2% per year with a smaller increase if the city's key department heads did not receive an increase of at least 2% per year. And it would make this a charter issue, essentially that the scheme could only be amended by a charter amendment approved by the voters.
[Zac Bears]: And I can get into more specifics too. That was just the general summary. Um, I think if you don't mind, Councilor Tseng to find my red line version here, but in general, um, I think one thing we've heard in the past is that folks don't understand why the mayor is compensated for the office of the mayor and the office of the school committee. And so this would say that the mayor's compensated just for being the mayor. But it would set that rate at $160,000 a year, which is pretty much what the mayor's making now, certainly with inflation in the next three years, what the mayor would be making at that point. And then it sets the council and school committee members and officers as a percentage of the mayor's salary. 20% for members, 25% for officers, if I recall correctly my proposal. So that's just generally the proposal. I think, you know, again, this would be in the charter, it would have to be approved by the voters as part of the charter. The charter study committee proposal was to have a committee make recommendations. And then again, the council would vote on those recommendations. And they would go into effect after the following election for each office. I don't think it addresses kind of one of the core conflicts. I don't think that proposal addresses one of the core conflicts at hand, which is one, a lot of the objections seem to be elected officials setting the pay of other elected officials when we've recently had these conversations. And two, that the council just didn't do its job. For 25 years, there was no adjustment to the school committee pay. For at least eight years, there was no adjustment to the mayor and city council pay. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact of the perception of the council setting rates of pay, especially under current law. So that's why I made this proposal. I'm open to thoughts amendments changes. And, you know, my hope is that if none of these amendments that I proposed are adopted regarding compensation. we really just try to flush out a little bit more of the question of ensuring that if it does end up being incumbent on the council to make these choices, that there's some mechanism beyond just an outside committee making a recommendation so that we don't end up in a situation where the school committee goes for 24 years with no, no just adjustment or even review of their, their compensation. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You know, here I'll go bad news, good news. I don't believe that we should pay different Councilors differently based on the seats that they have. And I don't think that moving to more local district word representation really will mean that any one of us will be doing a different job than we're doing now. But on the flip side, I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli's thought, and it actually inspired, I think, a thought for me that it might be, and you know, depends on who's in the office, right? But I think there's a little bit of an incentive here that maybe we could put in to Councilor Scarpelli's point that the increases only go into effect at a time when all collective bargaining agreements are settled. And that might be a way I would be supportive of that amendment because I think that's actually an interesting way to, you know, obviously I support some pretty much more significant empowerment of our public employee unions than maybe all of us do here, as I've mentioned the right to strike before here. this is a way, I think, to go towards your point. And my only thing would be that it should just go back to the same starting point. So if someone can't, if the executive hasn't settled all of the agreements, then we have to wait to a point when that happens, and then everybody gets their changes at that time. But that'd be something I'm totally interested in. I think that's a creative idea. An interesting thought from Councilor Scarpelli that gave me an interesting thought. So that would be an amendment I would support.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. I just wanted to note. Just wanted to note that. Again, one of the reasons that we had the conversation that we had was because no change have been made for 25 years. And, you know, again, No one would stand for that, having no changes for 25 years. But I also want to make a point that Councilor Callaghan brought up a measure that everyone else on this council strongly disagreed with one week after the election. So I just don't think it's a fair characterization to say that we brought up this thing. She brought up something. Her idea was, of course, actually to make changing elected official pay harder, but that got lost, I think, in a very complicated conversation. So I'm pretty sure all of us are on record at that meeting being pretty clear that we didn't support the initiative and having the conversation or the timing of it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I just, can I ask you guys the question now about different forms of compensation structures that you see? I know that, not that we really are looking to replicate any of the existing charter, but that the initial charter that we're under now did set the rate of pay for the mayor.
[Zac Bears]: yeah, leading up to the special act we have now, which is what we vote, you know, if certain people get a raise, we get a raise too, basically.
[Zac Bears]: And I guess, so this, would setting an amount in the charter be a flag for the legislature, considering that it exists at least in our charter and I would guess in other charters?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We were unique.
[Zac Bears]: We were the only charter that had that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I withdraw my amendments. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Just like this. I'm sure it'll be a slightly easier job. I would just like to make a final motion. And this is just, we've made a bunch of amendments. I want to get this due diligence right. I think the only people that really hurts are you and me, because I think you guys were planning to do this anyway, but I'd make a motion to request that the chair saying the vice chair and the call center take the committee reports and the motions as drafted. And we each create our own red line versions. from the existing charter, just to make sure that we all catch all the different changes that we've made. I think the three I's are better than one of the six or however many you guys have. I only have two. So just be emotion and that we get those. by February 27th so that we can include those in the Committee of the Whole packet for March 4th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we could add on to that that we refer this to Committee of the Whole and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to thank you guys for continuing to update these early maps based on the conversations that we've been having. I know a next step is going to be looking at the dimensional requirements. But I just wanted to be clear here, all of the residential districts, we're talking about a three-story maximum height. Okay, so we're not going over three stories anywhere. Have you had any initial thoughts into the dimensional requirements? Is that something we're probably going to see at the next meeting? Okay. And I think in general, I appreciate the changes that have been made. I think, you know, this NR2 district north of the square was something we talked about, and I think it just better, it's more cohesive and kind of better describes the topography of the area. Other than that, my only question was about this mixed-use two district, or potential mixed-use district, and that looks like it's at the Mystic Place Towers, essentially, and it's the idea there just that I'm guessing we're not going to see a significant redevelopment of that in any reasonable period of time, but is the idea just that we don't want to put that in an urban residential too because it would be non-conforming because the structures are so tall? Okay, thank you. And then just basically everything else that's of that kind of height and scope fall into the mixed-use corridors and square districts? Okay, that's a yes. I'm just... Got it. Kit, if you could... Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And then my only other kind of very minor question is around on South Street. There's a number of parcels. You see kind of this urban residential four corners right southwest of Medford Square, the orange right under the words Medford Square. I'm pretty sure the buildings on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners of that intersection are apartments or condos. Could you go into it all the condition of the buildings, south of South Street and west of what I think is Thomas Street of my mind is correct. Basically, This title piece right here in this you are to district.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, if you could, just that's the only thing I looked at that I saw that I thought might be. It's just that south, you know, if we take the four corners of that intersection, that southwest piece, I might be remembering the built condition differently than it actually exists. But thank you, and I really appreciate this updated proposal. I think just making clear to everyone that we're talking about three-story structures in these neighborhoods is just really important. and that, you know, dimensional requirements and those other things are going to really come into play. But, oh, the only other thing we talked a little bit about, kind of a design guideline or, I don't know, advice, something like that around slopes of roof lines and enabling that third story to be mostly utilized, but also try to keep with some of the to avoid the flat roof kind of effect. Is that something we might be talking about for when we talk about dimensional as well?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. Similarly, yeah, I definitely agree that that area between Main Street and Medford Street that contains Bow Street and Dexter Street and some of those others is something to be considered. I'm also looking at the area between Boston Ave and the Somerville border. It's just those three, three kind of parcels on, or sections of parcels on like Bristol. And those might, I think you might wanna, those could be, I think, considered as well, just because they're so proximate to Ball Square and so proximate to, Somerville zoning, including in some cases, like on the other side of the street. And I know that they're zoned up to three. So that might just be another place to think about just with the transit access on, I can't think of the other names of those roads, but those three right there. And something I think I've had, just looking at this area, some questions about is Harvard Street in general. I'm just wondering if... I mean, I think it'll be relatively easy when we talk about the corridors to decide more specifically what the corridor parcels are. And it looks like from your nodding heads, that's kind of the thought that you guys are having as well. And I see that on Main Street and Medford Street, but I have just a general qualm about Harvard Street. It's certainly a corridor from the perspective of vehicular bike walking traffic, like it's a connecting street, but the built condition really is, I think, pretty much continuous with the neighborhoods. So just looking at that, I can see coming back to it after we do the corridors, but I think there's just as strong an argument to be made that maybe we should just connect the districts that are currently separated out to the east and the west of Main Street as we are right now. But I'm interested to hear more what you guys were thinking there.
[Zac Bears]: Just before, just directionally, we're probably talking about the neighborhood zones moving in towards the corridors, not the other way around. So people probably parcels that might not be in the neighborhood boundary right now, probably ending up in them versus the other way around.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. And that makes sense. And I think, you know, some element of the The more I looked at it, the more I was like this feels more like kind of that dashed corridor along high street that we have and I think there's probably Some of Boston have a budding parcels to and I see them, you know, you have the Boston have parcels on the southwest side of Boston have that are in the neighborhood zone and up to a certain point and then you have the mixed uses. And so I see where you're going for there, but I think it's just important to note for folks that like, just because something is still in that kind of mixed use square and quarter boundary right now, there's a likelihood, especially if it seems like a lot of the existing structures are purely residential, that those are gonna end up being part of the residential districts or something rather than part of the mixed use or square corridor type districts.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just, I know there was also the commercial nodes, so maybe we wanna talk about that. Huh? Yeah, the little, yeah, there was that map where there was just like the tiny, Within these districts, there are a few places that have commercial on them.
[Zac Bears]: Just, yeah, talked about those, the commercial nodes and the residential districts. Were we going to talk about that?
[Zac Bears]: No, it's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I think just one thing on that topic that I think the most important thing that I think we were reminding a lot of folks on this on Monday night, right. The goal generally is that and obviously like to change the zoning does not mean that someone has to change anything about their property. So if you're a single family home, and you don't want to change anything about it, just because the zoning district changes doesn't mean you have to change anything. Something we're also trying to control for here, and it's tough, right, is, and because state law has special exemptions for single-family zoning, it makes it even harder for single-family structures, the proximity of that of those parcels to the transit access, even before the Green Line extension we've been seeing a lot of a lot of neighborhoods, very very large single family new or significantly renovated single family structures being built, and I think we don't want to see that. It's just not what we want to see. I think most people generally who live here now are not happy to see what was a relatively standard-sized single-family unit turn into a mini-mansion that's maxing out lot size and dimensionals. And I think the closer you are to a T-station, the more that the financials are probably going to break down for a property owner or developer to say, Oh, I could build a single family here. I could take this relatively normal sized single family, turn it into this giant 3,800, 4,000 square foot single family. It's 500 feet from the T and sell it for $2.2 million, right? when you could have, if you don't allow the by right new construction or significant renovation, at least they'd have to do two units. And the goal would be to incentivize them to do three or four because for 1000 square foot units is gonna be much better close to something like that in a walkable neighborhood than a giant mansion. So I kind of like more interested or amenable to the idea of saying, how can we make sure that people who are in existing single families now don't get that, by not allowing single family buy right, we can avoid all the impacts of them becoming nonconforming versus saying, we're gonna allow the single family so close to the transit where the land value is so high and then maybe get these weird externalities of big new single family housing exactly where we don't want it to be.
[Zac Bears]: Just to draw this down to maybe an unnecessary rabbit hole of use case, but this is probably only going to apply if they want the accessory unit and accessory structure right. Because otherwise, if it's in the principal structure, they just call it a two unit, and that's allowed by right.
[Zac Bears]: So it's, it's, it's certainly case specific, right? Where the two unit, you would have more freedom as to the square footage, but maybe a higher parking requirement. So you might choose to do the ADU because the parking requirements 0.5 less. And so you can fit that on a lot based on the dimensionals. But certainly, I guess my main question is, you'd have to do that if they wanted to do it in a non-principle structure, right? But you couldn't have, because we're not allowing two I'm assuming we're not allowing two principal structures on the same lot. Like they couldn't say it's a two unit, but one unit's in a detached garage and one unit's in the principal structure.
[Zac Bears]: So that's a case where not allowing the ADU For the non conforming single family would eliminate the ability to add a second unit either way, because, yeah, so I think that's where I'm just trying to take it down that yeah down that rabbit hole where like oh well. But they could have two units anyway so do they need it but not if they wanted to detach structure if they want to preserve a carriage house or something.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, okay. And I think, you know, I mean, I'm sure you'll do it, but... We had some of these conversations when we were doing the new nonconforming sections of the recodification a couple of years ago. So there may be some language that's already applying citywide that might help here.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And just on the short term rentals, I believe we updated that so that you can only do a maximum of 90 days a year anyway. So that might address parts of that question, at least.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, that would make sense, because my inquisition would still fall under a 90-day limit, but maybe they can make enough money in 90 days that it's worth it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just, you know, just looking at these notes brought up some thoughts for me. My first thinking is along the Broadway border between Medford and Somerville. One thing I just think we, I mean, and obviously I think we'd get there once we have the drop zoning. We should make sure that we're preserving the PDDs that have already happened. So like there's this node at Winchester over to Alfred basically right near the ball square T logo, that long rectangular, that's I think the PDD2 or PDD3 that we've already proposed. And it brought up another question for me, which is, and it might be for Alicia, where are we with the joint Somerville-Medford-Broadway zone? And is that, do we want, is that gonna be a special zone? Do we think that might actually fall under one of our proposals for a corridor. I just can't remember where we landed there.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and Alicia, actually, maybe just before, also, we now have this application for the CAPI site.
[Zac Bears]: And so that's another one of those, it's that node right over at the supercollider intersection at Wellington.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so that's going to be under the overlay district. That's what they're
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I just want to note, Like this is where I think the timeline that Vice President Collins has been talking about really comes in like we are doing stuff under the new zoning already because the new zoning is really three years old now because we started with the recodification. So we're now mapping over, and I think we should maybe look at Mystic Ave because I think we might have mapped over like the PDD one, and we need to look at that.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, those two, that and the Walkling PDD, just making sure that we're... Not losing them. Yeah, it just speaks to how if we continue to... We'll just end up in a more complicated situation if we don't complete this project in a timely manner. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if you guys want to, you might be able to answer it as well, but there's a catastrophic incident that results in the destruction and the need for the reconstruction of the building. You can build back to essentially the existing nonconformity that you had at the time, or rebuild the existing structure, the structure that existed before the catastrophe. In terms of a knockdown rebuild, that might be different, I don't know. What you guys think about that, like if someone was someone had a single family they tore it down they wanted to build a new single family in its place if we didn't have by right that might not be allowed.
[Zac Bears]: I just think it's important to talk about not necessarily change, but potential change. And there's a lot of countervailing factors here. Like I hear the argument of if it's going to be in most of the other places, why wouldn't you allow it here? But I think there's a countervailing argument of do you end up incentivizing, you know, very, very, very expensive single family homes that still don't conform to the existing nature of the neighborhood? I mean, we've seen it in some places, like there's, I know I point to it often, but there's the house next to the West Bedford Community Center that is just a wild structure. It's a really, it's a giant single family box that doesn't, you know, that you could house a lot more than one family unit inside of a structure that large. But I think it's important to talk about potential change. I agree like the transit is certainly impactful here. I think also noting that a lot of this zoning is really more like 60, 65 years old is important and a lot as with most of our neighborhoods, except for some of the newer single family subdivisions. most of these structures existed before the zoning even existed. And that's just something to think about as well. But yeah, I mean, I'm not, I've been personally when I look at this neighborhood really going back and forth between the idea of like, should this be an R3? Should this be a UR1? In my head, it goes back and forth a lot. So Certainly, I think your point, Councilor Callahan, about making sure that the people who have single family homes there now can continue to do with them if they want to stay with them, in them, what they want is important. And I think there's an entire other side of this, which is allowing this, which is not allowed now, might enable someone to stay in the neighborhood because they can add a second unit to the house. That can help them, you know, maybe they don't need the whole house as they age in place, you can add a second unit, you can rent that to someone that rental income subsidizes your fixed income retirement and I think like really thinking about this in all the different ways that the property owner might make a decision that is important to think about too, because I don't think it's, and I'm not saying you're saying this, but I don't think it's as simple as saying, oh, we're going from this SF2 to this UR1, and that's a major change. I think it's saying, A, the existing zoning really doesn't entirely reflect what is there. It certainly doesn't reflect the modern transit conditions or things that have happened in the intervening period. And some of these zones, and I think to Judith's point, maybe this is where you go the other direction with it, are allowing a lot more options, giving the people who live there now a lot more options than they may otherwise have. Part of the challenge of this whole thing is we can't control either collectively or individually or as a neighborhood what people want to do with their private property, right? And that's, I think, where we run into you know, we've heard it time and again, we heard it on Monday night. Why didn't the city vet the people who applied for the methadone clinic? And it's private property, a private provider and a private property. The city doesn't have any, the city can only equally enforce the rules and laws that exist and regulations and the private entities that own the land or own the structures or wanna do something in those structures. they get to make the choices they get to make because that's that's our system. I could have a lot of long ideological conversations about why I think maybe we should look at some changes there but that's not where we're at and the state laws never going to allow us to that applicants by the specific categories of what we think is a community benefit for you know who's a good private actor who's a bad private actor right it's not something that I think the state or federal government is going to let us do and I don't think it's something that we're looking at here so it's a compliment long story short I'm just talking for a while we've been here a long time and I should probably just stop but it's a long It's a really complicated set of conditions that we're trying to set a balance with across all of this. And yeah, I agree this neighborhood has a there's potential impact for this neighborhood. But I think there's also you know, they're going to see the property values are going to increase their significantly because having a single family home that proximate to high frequency transit is going to raise assessments and that could also push people out or push people to sell. So by allowing more options that might enable someone to stay in the neighborhood they want to stay in. So I think it's, you know, there's so many ways that each individual property owner, um, or resident is making the choices that they need to make and the way that the rules and laws impact them that I just want to try to be considerate of all of the potential plethora of choices that people might make as they try to live in what I completely agree with you is a really difficult circumstance of the economics of housing in Medford and in Boston.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thanks Vice President Collins and thanks Janie. I think to your point, One of the things, I'm gonna hit a couple topics. One of the things was we heard from Tufts. I'm even gonna back up a little bit more. We've been talking a lot about the Salem Street zoning changes recently. We had a Q&A session with some folks on Monday. And one of the things that we see now is that the way that the current zoning is structured, it allows very different dimensional requirements based on use. And if I'm correct, and I'm seeing some nods, Tufts justified some of their structure construction based on like what the underlying zoning would allow. And if I'm correct, that's because the current existing city zoning for something like a dormitory was falling under the other principle uses use which allowed very high heights. I think that's something we really want to fix. So, and that's something we're trying to fix citywide, so that we can't have Tufts as an institution falling back on I guess the best word I can use for it is strange or outdated or just broken zoning to justify what they did. Because that's the zoning now and was the zoning that they applied under, that was one of the reasons they were able to use that as a legal justification for what they built. To build on what Vice President Collins was saying, one of the things we want to do is put in institutional zoning for Tufts, and that's something we've been talking about. And part of this project that gets a little bit difficult is there's the larger neighborhood of like Hillside, right? And a big chunk of it is the residential stuff that we're talking about right now, but it also incorporates the mixed uses along Boston Avenue and it incorporates this institution Tufts. And likely what we would see is three different zoning types or maybe a mix, even a little bit more of zoning types in the neighborhood, but specifically designed towards your point of trying to control for these questions. And if you ask me, certainly one of the things that residents were who had been a little confused on Salem Street were I think more encouraged by was noting like right now the zoning because of how it's structured, you can build a 15 story hotel on Salem Street. nobody wants a 15-story hotel on Salem Street, and the new zoning we're proposing would make that impossible. And I think that's the kind of some of, it's an example of the changes that we're talking about when it comes to an institutional zone for Tufts. And also on Salem Street, we've built in some step backs and setback requirements to try to maintain light. I think when we're looking at the Boston Avenue corridor and its topographical arrangement, being above the residential neighborhood below, we'd want to factor in neighborhood specific elements to whatever's going on to Boston Ave to also address questions like that. So we're probably not going to talk about those specific zones and changes as part of this proposal, because this proposal is really about the residential district. But I'm thinking about it. I think we're all thinking about it. I'm seeing nods from the consultants and planning staff that they're thinking about it because we don't want, the whole point of this is to get zoning that can't be, that you don't have people running through loopholes to build things that we don't think have community benefit the way that we want them to be done. And I'll just leave it at that. But we're definitely talking and thinking about it. I think some of the questions you're asking are about probably around the Boston Avenue corridor and then also an institutional district for Tufts. And it's definitely going to be priority for me as a Councilor that we fix these broken elements of our zoning to avoid outcomes like what we saw earlier last week. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It might just be a question that we come back to when we talk about parking. Does the states kind of singling out of a single family and giving it some preferential status? Could a three-unit building have a three parking space limit, but a single family in the same district have Could you treat the units differently? And I don't know if you'd have the answer to that now or if it's something we'd have to think about for, but can you treat a unit in a single family different from a unit in a three family when it comes to parking if it's in the same district?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think, try to be as clear as possible. zoning and the zoning that we're looking at is one prong of different strategies that this council has proposed to address the displacement crisis and the high cost of housing. The high cost of housing is a regional problem. Medford, I think, through this zoning and through other things that we are hoping to enact, be doing more than its part and serving as a model for other communities inside 95 and 495 to step up their act and address the fact that we need tens if not hundreds of thousands of new housing units. One of the big things that's driving in a there's just demand people want to live here because people want to live in Boston because people like to live here people want to live in Medford because they like Medford. That's what we hear from people who live here it's what we hear from people who lived here and couldn't afford to live here anymore. And it's what we hear from people who want to move here who didn't live here. The way that this zoning helps the affordable housing question is threefold. One, One of the big mismatches we have is that our housing stock is not aligned to modern housing household size. So household size has been declining. Medford used to have more people than it does now, with actually fewer housing units than it does now, but that's because a lot of people were living in intergenerational households or had parents with lots of kids, so you had four or five people living in a home. You now have one, two or three people living in homes that you used to have four or five or six people living in. So one thing that the zoning is going to try to do is to allow smaller units so that these smaller households can live in them. Historically converting larger single family homes into as a historical conversion program, we propose to allow two units to try to maintain historical structures to allow people to age in place by putting another unit in their homes. Another piece that this zoning is going to try to address is what's called the missing middle of housing. So there's a lot of single family and some two family. And then what we've seen in Medford is a lot of multi, you know, 100, 200, 300, 400 unit apartment buildings. What we haven't seen a lot of is three, four, five, six, seven, eight unit apartment buildings. And just by having structures more in that range, you know, they tend to be units are a little bit smaller, it's more economical to have more units on a single parcel of land. So that's kind of trying to bring back what people call this small a affordable housing which is or naturally affordable housing, which is, you know, housing that is more affordable but it's still quote unquote market rate. The two pieces of this that personally I think are incredibly important, and also very difficult given the state and federal legal environment are the subsidized affordable units that we get developers to include in projects that's inclusionary zoning generally is what it's called. And then there is of course social housing public housing subsidized housing which is something that this country in the state has not invested in significantly and is actually most likely the main solution in the long run to having significant mixed income housing and reducing the average price of housing. We treat housing as a commodity we treat housing as an investment. We're seeing the impacts of that especially in places where supply is limited and demand is very high Medford can only do so much to address that. Part of what we're going to look at I know Councilman talked about TDM. I think we also want to look at some of the other affordable housing approaches, and we're hoping to fund what is called a nexus study, which is what is would be required for us to increase our inclusionary zoning. that would be increasing that. Requirements which would be increasing that arm of the proposal where we can have, um and require more affordable housing from people who are building market rate housing so that there's a bit more of a mixed income approach there. Um and something I'm hoping that we'll be able to talk about as we move through this process over the next five months is, uh. I'm interested to see if we think we need a nexus study to maybe adjust some of the thresholds and the inclusionary that we have now versus going whole hog and like completely redoing it or talking about going up to 20%. But is there something we could do on the low end around in this mixed in this missing middle area or encouraging some of the structure? I think one thing we want to avoid in the Cambridge seemed really intentional about trying to avoid is having people build buildings that are one unit below the minimum requirement for inclusion areas they don't have to do inclusionary and I think that's just something that we want to try to address to so I tried to be simple it's a complicated issue, but really. by and large, we're trying to figure out how to get more naturally affordable housing within the market rate structures. We're trying to get more subsidized affordable housing through inclusionary zoning. And, you know, we have been able to get a little bit more of the social housing, public housing model through the Medford Housing Authority, their redevelopment, both of the Riverside Avenue building and now Wackling Court. But for that to really be transformative, we're talking about federal money, and or a major state program or the state allowing municipalities to use their pride, you know, their beneficial bond rates to, you know, talking about really transformative laws that don't seem to be on the table right now. And at the state level, they don't seem to be on the table because the Honestly big housing has a struggle hold over a lot of the policy in the state, and then the federal level. The Republican Party does not seem particularly interested in using the government to help people. So, certainly not around housing. And Democrats have failed there for a very long time. The past 50 years of federal housing policy is pretty disgraceful from both parties. So it's a long answer, but those are the ways that we're trying to make sure that this zoning policy is focused on affordability.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. I just can't say how vehemently I disagree with that. I just answered about 10 ways that we think it does help affordable housing, both small A and big A, and public and social housing. I'd love the federal government to invest $2 trillion in building 4 million social housing units. I'd love the state to allow the city of Menford to take out bonds to build social housing. Given the laws and the conditions that we have now, that's not going to happen, but these proposals absolutely try to make the housing that we can build here now more affordable.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to be equally as clear. This absolutely does help with affordable housing, increasing missing middle housing helps because we have more units at a more reasonable price point for people to live in increasing inclusionary zoning literally increases the number of affordable units and developments. And if we're not making this, you know, if this isn't, if to say no to those facts is not a political approach, I deeply look forward to the support of all of my fellow colleagues on the rental registry, on rent stabilization, on using city resources to help construct affordable housing units, and a number of other policies that have been brought before this council that have been massively politicized for other political gain to support the interests of, quite frankly, people who own lots of property and rent lots of units in the city. So if this isn't about politics, I can't wait for the unanimous support of this council for policies that will stop the displacement of residents in the city.
[Zac Bears]: That's my point. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just about sure, do you recall the roll call vote count on the home rule petition to update the linkage fee ordinances, or I think it was 6-1?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We can build an affordable housing trust all we want, and we can fund it by asking the people who are developing large projects in the city to pay linkage fees, or we could have an affordable housing trust that has no money in it, so no affordable housing gets built.
[Zac Bears]: Third regular meeting, Medford City Council, February 11, 2025, is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. So President Adkins, please rise and salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 25022 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng, and President Bears. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council acknowledge and celebrate Black History Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who'd like to speak on this resolution? Seeing none, just as a co-sponsor, I want to thank my colleagues for putting this on the agenda. Thank the city for continuing to stand up for the values that we hold of diversity, equity, and inclusion and representing everyone here. I want to thank both of my fellow Councilors for lifting up voices of folks who are speaking out against what's happening right now and lifting up the nuance of what good policy work to address a history of racial injustice looks like in this country. And I think, you know, something we can all remember and it's important for us to remember is the radicalism of the civil rights leaders who ended 100 years of functionally slavery and oppression from the end of the Civil War through the 1960s. And we often hear sanitized and sparkled up quotes, but I think especially at this moment, a quote from Dr. King from his speech, remaining awake for a great revolution speaks to this moment that we're in as a country. Let nobody give you the impression that the problem of racial injustice will work itself out. Let nobody give you the impression that only time will solve the problem. That is a myth and it is a myth because time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I'm absolutely convinced that the people of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists, the forces committed to negative ends have used time much more effectively than the people of goodwill. And sadly, I think we're seeing that right now. Any further discussion? Seeing none on the motion, Mr. Clerk, On the motion, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25024 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, a resolution in remembrance of Dan Dill. Dan Dill was a professor of chemistry at Boston University for 50 years, publishing 78 academic research papers with particular interest in, quote, making quantum aspects of the world accessible to general chemistry students, end quote. That quote is from his personal reflections on his career upon his retirement in 2023. Professor Dill was also an accomplished photographer, winning an award from Kodak in 2006. I encourage everyone to look at his website. His work is beautiful, www.dandillphotography.com. On December 4th, 2024, Professor Dill was walking his dog in a crosswalk across Mystic Valley Parkway near his home in West Medford. He was struck by a car and critically injured. Professor Dill passed away from his injuries on January 11th, 2025. His neighbors and friends, have banded together to lobby for changes to the traffic patterns and the greater traffic enforcement on that road, which is controlled by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Apologies. Be it hereby resolved that the Bedford City Council share our deepest condolences of Professor Dill's family and loved ones, express our hope that this senseless tragedy will not be in vain and will not be repeated. Be it further resolved that the City Council work with DCR and our state delegation to make improvements to the crosswalk where Professor Dill was killed. Council is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: And that's all, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Lazzaro. Councilor Kelly here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I think just from a procedural perspective, if we wanted to divide the question between the two paragraphs and send the second paragraph to committee. That would be procedurally fine. I'm also in conversation with the Bike Commission and hoping to engage members of WOC-Mentford to have folks down to talk about the updates to the citywide Bicycle plan and also the general road safety needs. Um And maybe even moving towards adopting a vision zero policy. I think there's also the side of enforcement. I don't know if those should be one meeting or two meetings. Um or one really big meeting, but I think if we refer this, and my preference would be if we would refer that to Committee of the Whole, my hope would be, my hope in working with the Bicycle Commission and other advocates would be to have that in Committee of the Whole. Right. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro, do you have anything? Are you amenable to turning the second paragraph of the resolution into a B paper and referring that to Committee of the Whole?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the B paper, which is the, oh. Oh, on Zoom. I will go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes. Mister Cassidy? Someone here wants to talk? Okay, great. We'll try to come back to you. If you would like to speak on this resolution, please come to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to try Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom again. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You're on. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to go to Martha. Martha, name and address for the record, please. It's three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public on this resolution? Seeing none, on the B paper, which is the final paragraph of the resolution, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. on the a paper by Council is our seconded by the paper seconded by Councilor Callahan a paper, also seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed the motion passes. Thank you all. If we could all rise for a moment of silence. Thank you. Records, the records of the meeting of January 20th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, January 29th, 2025. Councilor and Vice President Collins, how did you find the report?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the report of committees, seconded by? So my councils are all those in favor of those motion passes 24354 and 25055 by Councilor let me resident services and public engagement committee January 29 2025 report to follow Councilor let me.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, I mean to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all this in favor. Opposed, the motion passes. 24468, Governance Committee, February 4th, 2025. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24492 and 24493 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Sorry for the typo. Public Health and Community Safety Committee, February 4th, 2025. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I would move to approve on the motion to approve by councils are seconded by second by Councilor Collins. I was in favor of those motion passes. Hearings 24515 public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 Salem Street neighborhood corridor district hearing to be continued to March 2025 pending recommendations from the Community Development Board. This is a we had noticed a public hearing jointly with the Medford Community Development Board on the proposed Mystic Avenue corridor zoning. The Community Development Board took up its public hearing on this, opened it on January 22nd, but it's continuing it to a future meeting. We don't have the recommendations, but because it was noticed, we should open it tonight. And once it's open, there should be a motion to continue to the March 11th meeting. So I'm going to declare the hearing open and recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Vice President Collins to continue the public hearing to the meeting of March 11th, 2025, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the affirmative, negative, public hearing is continued to March 11th. Petitions, presentations and similar papers, 25025, petition for a common victor's license, Kelly's Roast Beef. We have multiple papers on file and I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Is the petitioner from Kelly's Roast Beef here either in person or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom if you're present from Kelly's Roast Beef. I'm not seeing any hands and I'm not seeing a table on the motion to table to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. 25-026 petition for a common victor license King Boba tea. get this open. We also have our various files in front of us, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: A representative from King Boba Tea. Yes, please come to the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Could we just have your name and address for the record? Just state your name and give the address of the business.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, just the business address is fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Awesome. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve this petition, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm confirming that the negative of the motion passes. Good luck.
[Zac Bears]: I know that- Councilor Scarpelli. Just- You're all set. Oh, here you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Fantastic. All right. Motions, orders and resolutions. Do you want to take up the under suspension and refer it out now or on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to suspend the rules to take paper under suspension, 25-027, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25-027 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Committee on Education and Culture schedule a meeting on February 25th, 2025 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The Committee will discuss the needs of the Recreation Department for the upcoming budget season. Committee will also discuss recreational programs involving our disabled community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Thank you, Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to the Committee on Education and Culture for a meeting on February 25th, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 25-023, whereas this member of the Council has received, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, whereas this member of the Council has received multiple calls and emails requesting information regarding communication processes informing residents on the topic of zoning. And whereas residents have questions about where to locate meeting minutes and information dealing with the zoning process, and whereas the zoning process moving at a rapid pace and residents are questioning if there's a deadline to complete rezoning, be it resolved that the city council discuss the zoning process. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to give my perspective on the meeting last night and talk about procedurally the ideas that you're talking about. But I just wanted to say that I think It's a pretty general truism that when government does something right. Nobody complains, nobody talks about it and nobody gets any credit for it. And when government does something wrong, you have a lot of conversations about how it could have been better and how to make it better. And I think that's been my experience of this larger project so far. This is the fourth major change that we've done as part of the project, but it's the first one where we had residents so clearly and vociferously frustrated by elements of the process. And I think that we have done significant work to try to respond to that. And last night's meeting was a part of that. I'm going to leave it to Councilor Collins to talk about some of the other work that we're doing. I think very much along the lines of what you just mentioned Councilor Scarpelli around bullet points and breaking this down and getting nuggets out there. I know Councilor Collins has more on that. We were there till about 10 last night. you know, most folks had left at that point, but the, I know, you know, Councilor Scarpelli, Rep Donato and about maybe half to three quarters of the crowd had something they needed to do other than talk about zoning for three and a half hours. But we did manage to answer every question of everyone who stuck around. And I think, you know, certainly there are people who walked in with opinions and feelings who left with the same opinions and feelings about the zoning. But I think we also did do some significant work as Councilor Scarpelli noted to break down the information, provide a little bit more of a visual guide for folks who had concerns, address some of the statements and comments that had been made. I know one of the big ones was around, oh, 15 stories and some, you know, there's going to be these loopholes. And we actually really were able to dive down directly with a couple of folks who had really been concerned about that and show them that actually the thing that they're worried about is the zoning we have now and not the zoning that's being proposed. And that was really reassuring, I think. Maybe not on the totality of this. I'm not saying those people agree that this new proposal is the best thing in the world now. But on that specific issue, we were really able to address that. It was, I think, a productive evening for the most part. I've received a bunch of communications today thanking the Council and the Planning Department and Innes Associates for their work to put that together. And I think just moving to the procedural perspective, we've continued the public hearing to March 11th. If we don't have the recommendations from the Community Development Board, which is meeting the week before at March 5th, I certainly would support again, a continuance of the meeting further but that's how we would, we can't make a motion now to continue a public hearing that we just voted to continue to another date. So, if we want to make a motion to further push that meeting out. We would do that when we reopen the public hearing. And I just also. Personally want to note that I think a lot of residents we were very clear with residents last night who are highly involved and engaged about the process going forward. And personally, I would like to let the planning department, and as associates take all the comments and notes and questions. that were raised by residents last night, but also at prior meetings via email, via the input submission process. There were also some residents who were waiting on some questions to be answered, because I think that's going to inform the set of recommendations they make to the Community Development Board. And we really did say to folks last night, the next opportunity to engage on this is Community Development Board on March 5th. If the recommendations that associates proposes and planning development, sustainability propose address a lot of these concerns about uses that we're talking about, medical uses, short-term housing uses, some of the questions that people had and that the community development board feels comfortable making its recommendations to the council at the March 5th meeting, then we could consider that on March 11th. And if we feel that we should extend as Councilor Scarpelli noted, I think that would be the time to make that call. But of course, if the Community Development Board continues for another after March 5th and we don't have recommendations from them, I think we would continue. So I'm trying to speak to what you're saying Councilor Scarpelli in terms of the intent I agree with you if there's still a lot of if we have certainly if we don't have recommendations and community development board feels they need more time to spend on it. But I think we should continue further down the line. And, but I just want to be procedurally of note to say We told a lot of people last night how things were going to go, and I don't want to change that up on them personally right now. I think we can make that decision when we get to the decision point in March. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, just one other note. We did accept a proposal and that proposal has a time frame on it. You know, we've had the timeline that we've been on since last spring because the proposal is essentially to complete the introduction of major changes by the end of June and the cleanup by September, and that's based on the proposal that the council and city accepted for this project.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So there's a B paper from Councilor Scarapelli. Okay. I'll go to Vice President Collins and then I'll read the B paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have a motion, a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli to delay the Salem Street neighborhood quarter district zoning until more neighborhood meetings are held. Is that an accurate summary? Is there a second on that motion? Hearing no second, the B paper is not The B paper fails. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli, which was read out earlier, is there a motion on the A paper? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, we'll move to public participation. If you'd like to speak on the paper, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium. seeing one on Zoom. Two on Zoom. We'll start with Cheryl. Cheryl, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zachary. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Rich on Zoom. Rich, name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the A paper, on the motion receiving place on file. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I just had one question. Apologies for having to leave early last regular meeting. McCormick Avenue was referred to committee of the whole. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Huh? Was it McCormick Ave? Just on those two parcels? So you're saying if I leave it all, everyone turns? You did a podcast of some kind? The McCormick Ave Beats? Okay. Well, thanks. Thanks for answering my question with more questions. Is there anything else anyone wants to take up from Unfinished Business? Do you want to clear out any unfinished business that's been sitting for a while? We do have a little extra time tonight. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: 23412 and 24352 and receive in place on file. I haven't seen any action on those in many months, and I haven't heard from any petitioners. It's been long beyond the 90 days, so they're free to reapply at any time. On the motion of Councilor Collins to take papers 23412 and 24352 from the table and receive in place on file, seconded by. seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. We'll go to general public participation. If there's anyone who'd like to participate on any matters before the Council, or otherwise, we can hear you now. You'll have three minutes. Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none. Is there a motion on the floor on the motion adjourned by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Hello, everyone. First, I want to acknowledge Councilor Tseng, Representative Barber. Have I missed anybody else who got here a little late? Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, Vice Chair Graham, my colleagues on the City Council, members of the School Committee, state legislators, city employees, and most importantly, the residents of Medford for being here today to hear updates about the state of the city. It's an incredible honor to serve the people of Medford as your City Councilor and for the past year as City Council President. I'm proud to say that this term has been the most productive City Council term in living memory. From my conversations with residents and review of City Council records, we've shown an incredible work ethic and focus on the business of our city and delivering results for the people. When I spoke last January, during my first words as Council President, I talked about three key principles that would guide my work. Collaboration, planning, and trust. In its first weeks, this council approved the first ever two-year plan, our city council governing agenda, to tell residents what we would be working on and hold the council accountable to clear goals and deadlines. We established a new committee structure so we could get more real, substantive work done and implemented new approaches to public engagement to reach more residents than ever. I'm glad to stand here before you today to say that we have succeeded. We held 99 meetings in 2024 and have over 60 that have already occurred this year or are scheduled before June of 2025. We've made major progress on our governing agenda, moving forward on items that have been delayed or ignored for as many as 40 years. We are now broadcasting every meeting on YouTube, publishing a monthly city council newsletter, using a modern agenda and meeting minutes portal, and holding multiple listening sessions out in the community in addition to our official meetings. I want to thank my colleagues and the city clerk's office team for their incredible efforts to make this happen. I'm lucky to work alongside such dedicated public servants. I could go on forever about the work we've accomplished so far and what lies ahead, but I'll try to keep the rest of my comments brief. There are three major responsibilities of the City Council. One, reviewing the budget. Two, updating the city's zoning ordinances. And three, legislation through the passage of ordinances. This term, we're also working on a fourth major responsibility, updating the city charter. I wanna thank Vice President Collins for leading our zoning updates project alongside our city planning staff. This group has held over 20 public meetings and done incredible outreach to finish our work modernizing the city zoning and implementing the city's 2023 comprehensive plan. This work is already bearing fruit and I'm excited for the end product we will see later this year. Thank you, Vice President Collins. I want to thank Councilor Tseng for leading the City Charter Review Project, which is years in the making, and the first time we've seen an updated charter considered since the 1980s, and taking on the work of our Charter Study Committee so we can consider those recommendations with the significance and the detail that they deserve. I can't wait to vote yes on a new charter this November. I also want to thank the rest of my council colleagues, Councilors Callahan, Lazzaro, Leming, and Scarpelli for their work, especially for leadership on committees and the urgency in passing ordinances. Just since January 2024, we've passed nine ordinances, including the city's first ever budget ordinance last spring and a welcoming city ordinance last month. We've had over a dozen adoptions of state law, loan orders to fund essential projects, and the establishment of revolving funds and the city's first ever stabilization funds in partnership with the mayor. And I know there is much more to come in 2025. Finally, I want to thank the mayor and members of the school committee for working collaboratively with the city council to pass the city's first ever override votes last November. We worked diligently to address the major financial shortfalls that have left Medford's government and public school system without the staff and resources needed to provide residents the services they deserve. Medford stood up and said no more. No more cuts to our schools that hurt our students and teachers. No more doing less with less. No more to a DPW without the staff it needs to do basic road and sidewalk maintenance. We will keep working diligently on the upcoming city budget and the major capital needs of our city, and I look forward to advancing the honest truth about our financial situation and letting voters know the consequences of decades of underinvestment and deferred maintenance, as well as the material benefits we will see this year because of the voters' approval to invest more in our schools, streets, and sidewalks. Over the next 11 months, I will continue to lead the city council with openness and transparency by putting facts first, correcting misinformation and false narratives, and following the clear plan we have collectively laid out to build a better future for the city of Medford. Thank you all so much for your time tonight. I look forward to working with each and every one of you to keep delivering results for residents and achieving all we can for our beautiful city. and with that, I am happy to introduce the mayor of the city of Medford, Breanna Lungo-Koehn.
[Zac Bears]: President.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I said second. I can happily join the queue. I do have another comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I would also note that, um, there are a number of existing boards and commissions established by ordinance that have appointing authorities from multiple different bodies, the Affordable Housing Trust, I believe, well, not the Affordable Housing Trust, sorry, the CPC, and some others as well. So I think it's important to have that in there. But I did have one question, which is just as relates to by charter or ordinance. Could the Collins Center representative speak to whether by charter includes, if this were to pass, Other special acts that apply to the city of Menford, for example, the Traffic Commission is established by special act. I believe the Community Development Board is at least partly established by special act. Certainly the Office of Community Development is. So does by charter also include special acts previously applying to the city before the assumed approval of this charter?
[Zac Bears]: Well, it spawns many other questions. When will that be complete? And when will we review it? And is the council on the hook for drafting that? And does the Collins Center have a list of special acts that currently apply to the city?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, just one question. Assuming an extended absence, would the acting mayor I just think I would find it very difficult for any councillor to take on the role of acting mayor for months without, would that person receive the compensation of the mayor? It's just unclear to me how that would work, especially given that councillors have other jobs.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I mean, I don't have a proposal. I'm just wondering how, how has this worked in other communities? You know, it seems like an acting mayor coming from the council would have to take a leave from their full time job to fulfill that role. How would they be compensated?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I guess just as written now, what would you say that this charter would compensate an acting mayor who is a member of the council?
[Zac Bears]: No. Uh, there's no response to that question. Okay, so yeah, I think we need to clarify what that is, if it's unclear in the language as written.
[Zac Bears]: All set. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, I have the same initial question. And I thought about it for a minute. And I think this is specifically for a case or example where the mayor is unable to declare themselves unable to serve. For example, if a mayor was in an accident and was unconscious, the council could make that vote. I don't think it's intended to sit at the, you know, if the council has a dispute over the mayor's competency and chooses to vote unanimously to remove the mayor, And the mayor is of not enough mind to write and sign a letter saying that they do have the competency to serve as mayor. I think it solves for that. Essentially, the council couldn't abuse the power because the mayor could immediately reinstate themselves. But in a situation where the mayor is unable to recuse themselves from the office, because of some sort of unexpected event that in that case, it would allow the council to take such a vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as I read it, we would, this would add a budget meeting earlier than we have in the ordinance as it stands now. And it looks like it might make some small changes to the timelines that we're currently complying with. Chapter 43 or 44, Mass General, I can never remember which one, but we might just need to make some adjustments around the beginning and the end to make sure the dates are in line. But other than that, it doesn't really affect the heart of the budget ordinance around the budget meetings. Thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had one, uh, follow up from our last meeting, which was, um, regarding the language around, including elections commission versus city clerk. Um, since we use the election commission model, um, but I also know that the mass general law that we adopted to move to the elections commission. Essentially says that the election commissions culture of the function of the city clerk as it relates to election. And I was wondering if the Collins Center had had a chance to take a look at that and figure out how we should refer to our elections oversight body, the body that conducts elections here in Medford in the charter.
[Zac Bears]: Great, then I would make a motion to replace the word City Clerk with Board of Election Commissioners throughout Article 7.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the other option would just be to request from the Secretary of the Commonwealth a map that adds an additional precinct within each ward. We had a proposal that kept us at eight wards, but added a third precinct in each ward. So that would just be another way to do it.
[Zac Bears]: I just moved to refer the articles discussed tonight with the amendments voted on by the council to committee of the whole.
[Zac Bears]: Including the amendments.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I just wanted to thank the Innist team and our planning development and sustainability office and you for your work continuing on this project and note also this is and I think we've noted at every time a continuation of the comprehensive plan process that established the citywide comprehensive plan in 2023 that had input from thousands of residents across dozens of events and meetings and other ways of getting information like surveys and interviews and a lot of other sessions that has gotten us to this point. I think something that we study in economics is the idea that you know, the quote unquote free market only works if everyone has perfect information, which means every single person in a market knows everything, every single piece of information that everyone else knows. And one of the first lessons that you learn in economics is that that's impossible and that that's why we have rules and regulations and laws and processes. And while I'm encouraged that we continue to iteratively try to improve those processes, there will never be perfect information where everyone knows exactly every piece of information and has heard everything they want to hear. And I just think it's important to acknowledge that as well. Really, again, you know, I think we've been actually incredibly responsive to hearing from residents. Some of these zoning proposals have not had people saying some of the things that are being said on Salem Street. And so we've adjusted the process to try to answer more questions and get more information out there. And I think that that is the work of government, especially a government like here in Medford where we are deeply under resourced, and we don't have the hundred person planning department in Somerville or the multi hundred person planning department in Cambridge or thousand person planning department of Boston. or even the revenue that we see in cities like Everett, or the government help that comes from the state and other communities around the Commonwealth. So we are working very diligently. I appreciate your leadership on that. And I was hoping maybe you could talk a little bit more about what you've been doing. I think the one piece of this kind of conversation that we haven't talked about is how you've been working with the city administration. And we have additional engagement from the communications team. And if you could talk a little bit more about what that's going to look like in terms of the information available to residents online.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think this map is incredibly insightful. I think this actually gives us the picture. It shows citywide. It shows where corridors and squares are, which are the places that are kind of in the gray. and showing the existing condition under the boundaries that are done by parcel. It's just a great visual. So I just want to thank you for putting this together. It really, I think, helps show what we're talking about. I have a couple of thoughts on a couple of these boundaries and where we should look at one and two. And I know we've had some discussions in previous meetings about this. It's not, I don't think, worth getting into right now, saying, like, look at this little square, and I think that should be different. One thing I noted, and it might be more of a comment for when we talk about dimensional, but I think something that also will be important to think about is what some design and performance standards look like for the third stories of the neighborhood, two and three districts where I think we've definitely, I think the two and a half story idea, I think is a really not a great one. And that really negatively impacts what a lot of property owners want to do with their properties in the city. But I also think that we can be artful about what a third story looks like so that we get some of the design benefits that I think we all like about just the visual of a three story building. Really, that's my comment at this point. I'm sure it'll come up a little later, but I think this visual really brings home exactly what we're talking about. And there's really only a couple of places here where I think maybe the district is one increment of density higher than I would think it should be. And a lot of that is in kind of the transitional, some of this middle of the city transitional area. So thank you for putting this together.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. And one other thing I think it might be worth noting on some of the specifically, let's take a look at the Wellington district just south of the UR1. There's a, you know, I think it might be worth labeling some of the larger condos as nine plus units, rather than condo conversion because I think there's just a few developments in here that are definitely more akin to a larger apartment building that like the condo conversion to three family and I think just a distinction there might be helpful to. But that's just my one other thought, taking a look at the map. I just noticed that I was like, well, yes, the Modera is Rivers Edge or nine plus, but the condos on the other side of the tracks are also multi story multi units on each floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think similarly, and I already kind of brought it up, but I think some design standards to look at you know, what a three-story structure might look like where it's more like dormered out with a more sloped roof line or something like that would be helpful. And I think considering for the NR2, maybe something, I don't want to be so particular, like a 2.75, but you know, once we start getting into those, the half stories, about like the usable square footage area of the third story and it, you just, you know, I know having spoken to residents, you know, that sometimes the dormer just isn't, you know, they can't get it, you know, it's not worth doing at 2.5, you know, and I think there might be a way to have this conversation about design standards that complement the stories that could allow for a more useful partial third story, or even maybe a full third story in the NR2 district. And I guess just one other question, do you see any utility to potentially having like different processes, like a two and a half by right three with special permit, something like that? Or is that just kind of, to me, I think having a clear design review rather than like spot projecting by having special permits might be a better way to go about that, more consistent and easier for people to understand what we're proposing. But I'm just interested in your thoughts on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, and that makes sense to me. I think I'm really thinking about this NR2 when I'm thinking about, you know, if we want to activate the third story more, can we, you know, and like, I think going down the road of a design review board and mandatory design guidelines and everything is not what I'm suggesting, but I think You know, advisory is interesting. I don't really have as much of an issue with that because I don't think it actually, it doesn't add process. But I think maybe a mandatory something for, like for NR2, for the third story, like if you want more than two and a half, this is how you have to build it, might be something that is like a good nexus point of what we're talking about. And my only other question, remind me in the, what feels like years ago we called phase one changes that we passed I think last June. Did we pass the site plan review where we have a tiered site plan review? Or are we waiting on that? There was like going to be a kind of an administrative review.
[Zac Bears]: It just feels like it might be adjacent to this in some way.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to Councilor Callahan's point, I think for me, looking at the proposed districts over the residential types, that was kind of one of my also, I have a couple of questions about, again, some of those, that area, the west side of Forest Street, where there's an NR3 kind of square chunked off there, some of the boundaries of that large NR2 kind of in the middle. And I do think that there were some discussions that led to this proposal around the lot size and parking availability that I don't maybe necessarily agree with, but planning department folks and in the discussion saying, when you look at the Fulton Heights with the elevations and the topography and the windy roads and the small lot size and the significant on-street parking already there, that doesn't make sense. But maybe there's some spots up on the north end of Grove Street and out down that neighborhood where you have lots of off-street parking, large lot sizes, and proximity to transit that doesn't exist in some I'm essentially making an argument that I don't fully agree with, but I've been characterizing some other arguments that were made that it might be more, the capacity is there, even if it's not necessarily an existing condition. I would tend to think that I think that that district should probably be two districts and be one part NR1 and one part NR2. But I don't want to I will let the people who fully believe in that argument make that argument more robustly than I just did.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think I was the vice president.
[Zac Bears]: I defer to Councilors her belly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the clarification. Um, could we look at the proposed zoning districts and existing residential types map just to be put that up on the screen? Thank you. And yes, it is. The whole city. It's hard to see. I'm zooming in a little bit myself here. I think for me, the NR3 district, almost right in the center of the map, on the west side of Forest Street, it's a square. Well, yeah, I can't annotate, but essentially, there's this large NR2, there's an NR1, and then there's the NR3 between the highway and Forest Street that has a lot of the multifamily. The one on the other side of that, essentially, this bounding box here, I just think that given the existing condition, I would be able to proceed that as an NR2. And then I just had two questions about This square here, is that just a line that shouldn't be there? Or is that because of its proximity to the square district?
[Zac Bears]: And is that intended to be an NR3? And then here, this NR2, kind of on the backside, is that because that's like a subdivision that's all single family? Okay. Got it. Thank you. Sure, I was just talking about the NR3 district on the west side of Forest Street. The small square district that is, I think, intended to be an NR3 on the northern end of, just north of the Medford Square area. And then there's an NR2 district off of Spring Street. And that's because there's a subdivision there, a single family subdivision from, that's more recent than other construction in that area. It's where the old train tracks were. which I want to bring back, but sadly we can't. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, just to that comment, that is the square box that I was suggesting should be Not marked as an R3. I mean, I think we don't have defined neighborhood boundaries. One could argue that the Lawrence Estate starts at that intersection and goes to the intersection at Winthrop Street. We could have an argument about that for a year, and I'm sure everyone in the neighborhood would have a different opinion on it. But yeah, it seems to me that that bounding district between Governors Ave, Lawrence Road, and Forest Street, and what looks to be Hall and, oh, Street that I'm blanking on, that that should at least be more part of the NR2. And as Gaston noted, I think looking at the boundary line of that NR2 district and seeing if it should be moved further south. The NR1, NR2 boundary that's currently on Lawrence Road I think is certainly worth considering. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm turning on the microphones, guys. Oh, I can't do them all at once. We did get a request that people try to speak into their microphones during roll call votes. So for that purpose, we will have the microphones available to everybody for at least the first roll call. Second regular meeting Medford City Council January 28 2025 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. The records of the meeting of January 14th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and you received that? Got it. Great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve the records as amended, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 24510 offered by Council President Bears. This was on the school's HVAC Committee of the Whole. We voted on the loan order at the regular meeting following that. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, January 15th, 2025. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed motion passes to 5014. Offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, January 21st, 2025. This was our review of the CPC recommendations, Community Preservation Committee recommendations, which are on the agenda for tonight. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24492 and 24493, offered by Councilor Callahan, Public Works and Facilities Committee, January 21st, 2025. report to follow. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24468 offered by Councilor Tseng. This is Governance Committee, January 22nd, 2025. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We do have one celebratory resolution by Councilor Tseng under suspension. Would you like to move to take that? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take paper 25021 seconded by saying that by Councilor Leming all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 25021 offered by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council celebrate Lunar New Year and wish our Asian residents a happy and prosperous new year. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council invite residents to Medford's Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday, February 1, from 10am to 1pm at the Medford Senior Center.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, on behalf of the Council, we wish you a happy Lunar New Year. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions 25-011 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas we have received multiple phone calls and emails with the misunderstanding and confusion and fear of tax increases in their recent tax bill. And whereas the city did not educate or prepare residents in the overwhelming tax bill that administration set up immediate listening and education sessions for our residents. And whereas the need to support our most vulnerable members of the community, seniors, veterans, and disabled needing financial support that the city council request a more robust exemption option. And whereas the increased taxes have negatively affected homeowners. We as the city council be in the process of a homeowner exemption process. And whereas the increasing in our home assessments has surprisingly added to our residents tax bill, we share the abatement process with all residents that need to be educated in this process. And whereas our business community has been negatively affected by the tax increase, we asked the city to find financial relief and creative options that might be possible through grants and fees to alleviate financial hardships. Be it resolved that the city council discuss the concern, overwhelming concerns to our residents dealing with the recent tax bills. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I will go in a minute to my fellow councilors. And I just wanted to thank you for a lot of what you just talked about. And mentioning some of the work that I've been doing. And I want to also lift up the assessor's office under assessor Costigan and our assistant assessor. I've been working with them before. And after the override on updating information, trying to get more information out, we got those valuations out. I agree, we can always do more. And I do wanna say that I have connected, thanks to a resident who sent over some FAQs from some other communities that were very helpful. I know that the assessor's office is working with the communications team to significantly improve some of the information on the assessing department website. That's making it a little more bite-sized and accessible. And I think also just on the abatements, and I'll look this up as other councilors speak. I just want to note that I believe you have to have your application for abatement in by Friday. I think it's technically February 1st, which is the deadline. So I will confirm that as other councilors speak, but definitely the information page and just a friendly amendment. I think maybe the administration finance committee might be the place to, if that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I will go to Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan for brief comments. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, and yes, thank you for putting that together. I did just want to also thank the Assessor's Office. I've been able to set up meetings with residents with the Assessors as well, and those have been helpful. And the abatement deadline is Monday, February 3rd. If you're mailing it in, it has to be postmarked by USPS by February 3rd, or otherwise received by the Assessor's Office for 30 p.m. on Monday, February 3rd. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins for that amendment. We can get back to that. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan. And yeah, sorry about the levels. I think we're all at school committee levels. So you're louder than John. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, and it's a right now it's an amendment may not be a paper will get their Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I just wanted to add my two cents, I think moving forward, the residential exemption, which we've discussed in the past is a really good step. And I also just wanna note that I think I agree with pretty much everything that everybody said here, and that while it can be true that we've come a decent way on trying to get information out, and certainly there's more accessible information that there has been before, that also when unforced errors happen, that doesn't breed confidence, especially among people who are concerned. And I think that we could have gone a long way here if a letter had gone out in water and sewer bills and tax bills and a link to resources that do exist that are on the website. And that didn't happen. And so like, I share the opinions of both of my colleagues to my right, that things are better than they have been before. but they're not good enough, and we could have done better and can continue to do better. So I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We keep having the same argument over and over again. And I think it's because some people in the city feel one way and some people in the city feel the other. And so, some people feel how you've represented Councilor Scarpelli, and I've heard from some of them, and some people feel how you feel, Councilor Tseng, and I've heard from them, and some people feel how some of my other councilors are represented tonight. There's a diversity of opinion in this community, and, you know, we can do our best to make the decisions that we feel represents the best interest of the city, and listen to folks, but we're not always gonna agree with everybody. In any case, you know, I can understand how everyone here feels that some of the language they didn't agree with, and some of the comments they didn't agree with, right? That's how we're all feeling, I think, right now. That's the work. So we have proposals before us. I appreciate what everyone has said. We do have a proposed amendment by Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli, do you accept the amendment? That's a B paper, okay. So we'll take a B paper from Vice President Collins and then the A paper from Councilor Scarpelli. On the B paper by Vice President Collins, is there any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins. Great, I mean, we're gonna go to public participation next. So we'll go to public participation on this paper, the B paper and the A paper. We'll start at the podium. We do have a hand raised on Zoom. Everyone will have three minutes. So I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Julio. I do encourage people also to express their happiness, but thank you for your comment. I'm trying to bring a little levity. We keep having big arguments here. I'm going to go to the Zoom. We have Matthew Page Lieberman on Zoom. Matthew, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time and your comment. Any further comment on this paper in person or on Zoom? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. Go to Ellen on Zoom. Ellen, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on these papers. Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, B paper, Vice President Khan, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the A paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone else just me and Councilor Callahan on that one? All those opposed? I think I'm going to have to have a roll call on that.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, three in the permanent form the negative emotion fails. two four two five zero one two offered by Councilor Scarpelli a resolution requesting an update on the parking department be it resolved that the Medford City Council get an update on the status of the parking department be it further resolved that the council meet a new parking director at an upcoming meeting be it further resolved the council receive an update on the South Medford G parking program be it further resolved that because multiple residents have expressed displeasure with the appeals process the council request a meeting with the administration to research a more equitable and fair process Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Seeing none, I just wanted to say that I also believe that we should have a meeting with the new director. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, recommend what? Sorry. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: I think I'd have to look back at the matrix we made. I could see an argument for all three, but I think actually the transportation duties that we transitioned over, this does make more sense to be in the planning and permitting context. Education and Culture Committee.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you could send it to Committee of the Whole, then we don't have to have an argument. But I just wanted to say that I do think meeting with a new director is a good idea. I think something, if amenable to folks, that I would like to talk about at the meeting is just, in general, how can residents advocate for access permit parking on their street in general? I know there's a lot of concerns residents have around maybe they do want to set it up, maybe they don't want to set it up, and that would be helpful. I do want to just say that on the fees, we do have reports and there have been communications that we've received and that are available to the public from the parking task force that reviewed the parking policies and established the G zone pilot, which then the parking department, I believe moved from pilot to permanent. And that, you know, there were fees in the city that haven't been updated in 45, 50 years. And I think to me, it is important for the city to maintain with the times fees. Also, on the flip side, we haven't done linkage fees in 40 years, right? So it's really a symptom of a larger problem where the city was not keeping track of its different user fees, different programs for a very long time. And now, yes, we see an increase that's coming in. But that's because the task force said, hey, we haven't done this in 50 years. And we're out of scope with comparable communities in a lot of these things. I'm not saying they got everything right. I'm not saying there's not stuff that's open for discussion, but that's just something that I think is valuable. And I know that we, I'm hoping we will finally receive the report from all the other departments about their fees that haven't been updated in a long time and how we're going to address that. I just wanted to note also that while we can have the parking director and talk about this with the parking department, the traffic commission makes these choices. We can make recommendations to the traffic commission, but we cannot overrule the traffic commission. The traffic commission is established by a 1957 special act of the state legislature and is the final decision maker. I don't know what the policies of our current parking director are. I know the past parking director said that they do not serve on the traffic commission and they did not want to because they did not feel that they should be making the rules that they enforce. I don't know if that's a different viewpoint. I know that parking traffic and parking directors and other communities do serve on their traffic commissions. Also, I believe in Somerville a Councilor serves on that commission. So, just throwing it out there. If anyone wants to look up that special act, um, that's what is that almost 70 years since we've updated the structure of the traffic commission. And I have heard from, you know, members of the public that maybe that's worth taking a look at as well. Um, so just wanted to put those, that information out there. I'll go to councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. 25015 resolution to make city council meetings more business friendly, whereas businesses come before the council to request approval for storefronts, and whereas small business storefronts and our quarter squares and business districts foster a sense of community that residents desire. I'm a little loud here. allow our residents to shop small and local and bring needed revenue to the city and whereas we want business owners to understand believe Medford is friendly to small businesses be resolved that the city council's regular meeting agendas here the petitions from businesses prior to resolutions made by members of the council be it further resolved that rule 19 be amended as follows. The following a petition shall be reserved for only matters requiring council action for law including not limited to special permits grants location sign variances and common picture licenses. only petitions filed meeting this criteria shall be assigned a council paper number such hearings and petitions shall be heard immediately after the reading of council reports and before orders and resolutions and motions sponsored by council members i will entertain this but i want to remind councillors that there isn't the order of business currently does this and the only reason that that isn't happening is because we vote on motions to suspend the order of business and that even if we update the rules a majority vote of this body can suspend the regular order of business and move us beyond this. So I don't personally believe that a rule change is necessary. With that, I don't believe this is out of order, but I just don't believe that any rule change would change the practice and that that is on us as individuals acting collectively to change the practice and just make sure that we do not suspend the rules before taking these. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Sorry. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Just a note, Rule 12 is the order of business. It's the roll call, salute the flag, and then there is announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records, and this is intended to serve as a consent agenda analog. Refer to committee for further discussion is in there. because we shouldn't talk about it when it's in that section. So if people do submit something for that section, it's about sending that to the committee for the discussion. So if folks want to discuss it in the regular meeting, they should be clear that should go in motions, orders, and resolutions. And then we can still refer it out, but the intent of that was to clarify when we're having a debate on something significant versus when we are trying to say, we just want to introduce a topic because we can't talk in committee. if a paper is not first introduced in the council, but we want to reserve that discussion for committee. So again, it is more about councilor intent and behavior than it is about the order of business. And then following that consent agenda, we have hearings, presentations of petitions and similar papers, then motions, orders and resolutions, then communications and reports from the mayor, city officers and employees. Um, so if we, uh, you know, if we were to just follow that, um, and the intent behind the agenda and the rules, we would, we would avoid these situations. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, you know, the intent here is I'm interpreting it and I'll let everybody who wants to speak interpret it as well as. let's get the things we know we're all gonna agree on out of the way before we start talking about the things we're not gonna agree on. And that was the intent of forming the consent agenda in the first place in 2022. We don't call it that, but it's that first section announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Those would be mixed in with motions, orders, and resolutions. You'd have reports and records at the end of the meeting rather than at the beginning of the meeting. So you have these things that were non, essentially non-controversial that were pro forma, just actions that the council needs to take. I mean, we added to that in January of last year, this refer to committee for further discussion, because we had some questions about, are we taking a final action on something? And no, the answer is we're just trying to start the process, the legislative process. So I think I'm interested to hear what you have, Councilor Scarpelli, as the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Signs Chair. And I know that in Somerville and some other communities they will have, and I think we're moving in this direction on some things where they do a lot of work in the committee, and then it comes to the regular meeting and it is just kind of signed off on by the larger group and. And then the petitioner doesn't have to be here necessarily. They've been heard, questions have been asked by that subcommittee or committee. And we also could potentially look at, I think, a revision to the order of business to look at moving petitions that have come out of that subcommittee to the more consent agenda could be something that we look at too, even though they are pretty early on. I appreciate the intent of my fellow Councilors and Councilor Scarpelli on this matter and Councilor Leming and Lazzaro and I will go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like we might have a rule amendment. So that would be the governance committee.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I will say I am urging that. I do personally feel that's probably more the role of the chair than the rules, but that's just my opinion. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to refer this paper to the governance committee, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll go to public participation. We'll start at the podium, name and address for the record. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. We'll go to Zoom, back to Paige Lieberman. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. On the motion to refer to Governance Committee by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 25-016 offered by President Bears, be it resolved by the Menford City Council that the City Council President, City Council Vice President, and City Clerk conduct a process to recruit a new City Messenger and make a recommendation of a candidate for City Messenger for a final vote by the City Council. I think this is a relatively self-explanatory resolution. Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And this is our first appointment of a city messenger in at least for four decades, I would say close to maybe three.
[Zac Bears]: So, um, yeah. And, um, if folks haven't seen it, uh, there is a little Larry, um, memorial in the clerk's office. Um, I got Larry's corner going Larry's corner, um, over by the bulletin board. Uh, it was touching to see. Um, and we have had some discussions about some of the topics that you've talked about and what the role of messenger can look like. Um, going forward. So we will through the clerk, the vice president, I will keep the council updated on on how we move through that process. If that is sufficient. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilors are to approve all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 2 5017 review of a meeting law complaint of a meeting law complaint. Acknowledged receipt of open meeting law complaint from Laura Ortiz against the City Council. Did it January 11th 2025 acknowledge and review complaint and discuss response. Votes may be taken. We do have the open meeting law complaint form here. This is from Laura Ortiz of Lowell, Massachusetts, who has made an open meeting law complaint that is in very, very small text, and I will not be reading the whole thing, but it is essentially an argument that the council has violated the open meeting law by independently councilor signing onto a letter. There is I've been working with council and there is a response drafted. This is to the Open Meeting Division at the Office of the Attorney General. It says, just because it's long, I will sit down to make sure I can read the whole thing on my computer. This firm represents the this is from Janelle Austin KP law. It says this firm represents the city of Medford the city council, and the receipt of an open law complaint filed by Miss Laura Ortiz dated January 11 2025 which was received by the council that same day. The complaint alleges that the council violated open meeting while when five members of the council individually signed a digitally circulated letter. concerning recent changes to Massachusetts law. This is essentially the summary on January 20, 2025. That's this meeting, the city council met at a properly posted meeting and open session, which we're doing right now to discuss the complaint. The council has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint following such discussion has authorized this response on its behalf in accordance with general law chapter 30 a section 23. and 940 of the Massachusetts regulations subsection 29.05 subsection five, which is based on the information provided. The complaint alleges that a quorum deliberated outside of a properly posted meeting as set forth. However, the council respectfully submits that no openly meeting law violation has occurred. specifically while five individual members of the council did voluntarily and separately sign on to the letter in question individually. No deliberation occurred among or between the councillors whatsoever regarding this matter. Specifically, the five individual members of the council who signed on to the letter did so as individuals completely independently from one another in response to a mass circulated correspondence among public officials across the Commonwealth. There was no discussion, coordination, or communications regarding signing this letter between or among a quorum of the council at any time. As a result, the council respectfully submits that no open meeting law violation occurred. All right. There's more in the letter, but it's just a recitation of further facts and documentation outlining that summary. Is there any discussion by members of the council on this matter? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The vote would be to acknowledge and review the complaint and accept the response as drafted by Council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone in the chamber on Zoom who would like to speak to the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I would note that We did receive communication that the person who filed this as a serial filer of complaints against officials across the Commonwealth. And it's just does this all the time and most very often they're frivolous and the determination is that no violation was held. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just impressed that you can read the text that small.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. That was my joke. I was making that joke. Please let me make my jokes. Thank you, Councilor Tseng and I appreciate that. On the motion of Vice President Collins is seconded by Councilor Leming to acknowledge the complaint and to adopt the response as drafted by council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 25014, we have the Community Preservation Committee appropriation requests. We did hear these and we heard from all the applicants last week. This is from the mayor. Dear President Bears members of the council on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee requesting the appropriation of 526,000 to the Department of Public Works parks division for the place that tennis court resurfacing requesting the appropriation of $322,500 to for the facilities department for the city council chamber windows restoration project. Requesting the appropriation of $100,000 to Action for Boston Community Development for the Medford Movement Rental Assistance Program. Requesting the appropriation of $99,000 to the Unitarian Universalist Church for the Church Exterior Restoration Project. Requesting the appropriation of $400,000 to Shiloh Baptist Church to complete the Shiloh Baptist Church ADA Improvement Project. Requesting the appropriation of $85,000 to the Department of Public Works Segmentary Division for design phase two of the Oak Grove Cemetery Historic Buildings Restoration Project. request the appropriation of $250,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust as initial funding to conduct affordable housing tasks and requesting the appropriation of $98,285 from the CPA Open Space Reserve to the Recreation Department to complete the Condon Shell Field Lighting Project. As we know, public presentations were held Tuesday, January 21st to the Committee of the Whole meeting. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund, the recommendation letters are attached and incorporated, and we have manager DuPont and chairperson Cameron in attendance as needed. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I will go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve, seconded by, did you move? You made a motion? I'm sorry. Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having affirmative and negative, the motion passes. 25018 offered by Mayor Buenaventura Kern, Capital Stabilization Fund rescission and appropriation request. Dear President Bears, oh, Gaston, were you wanting to talk on CPC? I'm so sorry. I can come back to you right now if folks are okay with that. Was it about the chambers? The tennis courts. We'll take you. I really apologize. I'm sorry. Gaston, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be brief and then I'll go to Councilor Callaghan. We did have Commissioner McGivern discuss this and In terms of just repairing the cracks, that was not recommended because it would impact the ability of the service to perform the function that it's functioning. Like, even if you seal the cracks, it might affect how the tennis ball bounces, essentially. And also, he indicated that the cracks are an indication that the underlying base foundation is in question, and that's why they believe they need to replace it. essentially re certain not just put new stuff over but also fix the the base under the surface. But I'll go to Councilor Callahan if you have a more distinct memory than I do.
[Zac Bears]: And the rec department is largely fee funded, except for the salaries. It's pretty much... It's self-sustaining.
[Zac Bears]: And I think it's, just to further on that, it's kind of one of those situations where the fees do fund something in the city. the capital improvements and not like it's not the fee money goes to the fund to keep the thing maintained, but as the fee money goes to run the program. So in a sense, you know, if you were to shift the money to the other thing, we'd have to pay for something one way or the other, I think, but Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and my apologies for moving through the vote. Thanks. All right, a capital stabilization fund rescission and appropriation request from the mayor dear President Bears members of the council I respect the request and recommend that your honor body rescind the capital stabilization fund appropriation, and the amount of 322,500 for the window restoration in the chambers. That was approved November 12. None of the appropriated funds have been spent yet, and a request to appropriate the CPA funds has been submitted, and we just approved it. And this was, I think, as we discussed last week, the CPA funds were a better use than the stabilization funds because of the restricted purposes of CPA funds versus the general purposes of the stabilization fund. And that Manager DuPont and Director Riggi indicated there'd be potentially a one week delay in the procurement process. So it's not super significant in terms of the timeline. The second request is to appropriate $197,012.95 for facilities which include the following projects. window dressings in the City Hall chambers, emergency boiler repairs in City Hall, flooring replacement in the Veterans Office and Elections Office, City Hall lock changes, replacement of backflow preventers at Engine 3, Fire Engine 3, new shades and blinds, Fire Station Engine 3, bathroom renovations and adjacent repairs at Engine 4, window trims at Engine 4 and window trims at Engine 6. The total is $197,012.95. With the rescission, any appropriation requires two-thirds majority vote, and with the rescission and the appropriation, the balance of the capital stabilization fund would actually increase from $3,405,000 to $3,530,481. That is the proposal before us. And I will go to members of the council if they have any questions. We do have Director Riggi here on Zoom. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further questions by members of the council? Excuse me. Seeing none, Director Riggi, would you like to say anything at this time? Just if there's any context you wanna provide? Don't unmute Matt. I clicked Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Riggi. I appreciate you speaking on this and your work on these projects. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. I apologize to my colleagues, but I need to step out early. Vice President Collins, if you could take the chair. And I appreciate my colleagues for their deference. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I missed that. Thank you chair saying, um, I want to, uh, thank my colleagues. Thank you for putting together these meetings. Thank the members of the charter study committee, the mayor and the Collins center for their work up to this point. Um, and especially for those who are here tonight, as well as member of the public members of the public who are interested in this topic. Um, we are, And I think I've said this a few times now, we're working on all three of the big three that Councilor Knight once told me the city council is responsible for this term. We've passed a budget ordinance and a budget, and we have another budget coming up. Obviously we are in, I think meeting 18 or 19 of the term of the planning and permitting committee regarding zoning updates. And we are here tonight on the charter. which is the foundational document for our community. And we are looking at the first update in nearly 40 years and bringing us into, I would say, the modern age of city charters based on what we're looking at here and before us with the proposal from the Charter Study Committee revised by the mayor. And by and large, I think this proposal is a really great proposal, a charter that the people can understand and something that I wholeheartedly support as a whole. Last week I submitted to the council and shared with the public very openly a series of amendments that I would like to propose for discussion tonight by this committee. And I am hopeful for the consideration and moving forward on them. But I also just want to note that part of the reason that I went about this the way that I did is that there have been fantastic discussions from multiple people all over the Internet talking about what they would like to see, what they wouldn't like to see, bringing forward new ideas that have added to my knowledge base and that I am going to bring to the discussions that we have tonight. As regards to the first article and the sections within it, I want to thank the study committee for putting together a thoughtful preamble. I really think it represents what our community is, as well as its rich history, as it says right in here, our city's rich history and where we want to go and what the purpose of a charter is. As regards to the rest of the article one and sections, I did have a couple of minor proposals around the definitions, but they do relate to the proposal around the composition of the city council. So I will not make any motions or discuss them at this time, but we'll discuss them when that topic comes up for the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to also, I was remiss to not thank the Collins Center. They worked up a great comparison document that we received the other, I think yesterday or the day before, comparing what's in the current charter to the proposal. So I just wanted to thank the team at the Collins Center for putting that together. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I see President Bears. You can go to Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, OK. George, give me a second. Yeah, no problem. Great.
[Zac Bears]: see you president bears thank you Councilor Tseng um just a note uh we're going to come back to 2-1 and 2-4 okay um i just yeah and i appreciated the question i just want to make sure we stay on course have the discussion on those um i have as regards to section 2 or article 2 I have thoughts on 2-5, 2-7, 2-9, 2-10, and then I also have a thought on 9-6 and moving into section two. So.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is though, not in the case of an investigation or inquiry, I regularly communicate with the city assessor to set up a meeting with the resident to talk about their assessment. This would seem to prohibit me from doing that. Is that true?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, um, obviously subject if you want to take a look at it and come back, but it would seem to me that if the intent is to make clear that the council cannot order a city employee to do anything, um, maybe just eliminating everything between the comma after section two, six and the word neither. So eliminating the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and because then it would just read, except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations pursuant to section two, six, neither the city council nor any member of the city council shall give orders or directions to any officer or employee, either publicly or privately. I don't know if that makes sense to folks.
[Zac Bears]: I'll make a motion to make that amendment pending further discussion and information from the representatives from the Collins Center.
[Zac Bears]: Or yeah, I can work on emailing it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sorry. It would remove the sentence, the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor and but maintains the intent that we could not give orders or directions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had one one item here under section two five subsection one that the regular meetings of the city council be held at a time and place fixed by ordinance. I would change that to the city council rules. Okay. Is that a motion? That that would be a motion, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And the clerk already has that language in the document I sent over. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Through the chair. Yeah, the city council can change the rules of the city council by majority vote. But it doesn't require multiple readings.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, um, regarding this section, um, I had, well, one comment, which this is the first item that incorporates one of the charter amendments passed in the last term, six to one, subsection B. In the initial draft, I would propose that it be subsection C, but subject to appropriation, the council being able to have additional support positions. That was something we advocated for in the last term, and I appreciate its inclusion in this draft. My main questions and my proposal here is one, the city messenger position that wasn't included. So I proposed that it be included. And so that would be a new subsection B. And then I also noted that section A didn't include a residency requirement for the city clerk. I put a draft together that put it back in, but I'm interested to hear if that was not included purposefully or if there's another provision of Massachusetts general law that would cover residency or just the reason that that was not mentioned as regards to the city clerk. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Withdraw my motion related to residency for the city clerk.
[Zac Bears]: I haven't made a motion. That, once I submit it, I will not move.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I would move to adopt the amendment to include the city messenger and the charter and then just renumerate, subsection B would become subsection C, subsection D would be, C would become D, and the city messenger section would be subsection B, and that language is also in the document.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to try and make my motion with Councilor Scarpelli, so I just take one vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it is there, and I think it's two meetings away.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you Chair Tsang. This is the second of the three charter amendments passed in 2020. three, I believe. And this regards the Council confirming the appointments of the mayor. The initial amendment that we had put forward that wasn't advanced to the legislature at the time by the mayor would have had us affirmatively approving all appointments unless otherwise noted by mass general law by majority vote. This has us having to take a specific motion to reject an appointment by a two thirds vote. I do know that there were some concerns by the mayor about having to send all of the appointments to the council and get affirmative. votes, I did read through the study committee report and found that that was relatively common. But in the spirit of compromise, I can understand that concern. And I would just propose changing the threshold from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote, which also seems to be very common across most communities. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So I think my opinions, I don't disagree if I make sure I don't disagree with you. So this, the way it's written without my amendment is the council would need two thirds to reject. So we wouldn't see everybody. that we would only appointments would be made and then we would have 30 days to say we don't want that appointment and then it will require two thirds to reject that appointment. So it's not saying they would come before us. I actually agree. I support. Yeah, I would support if someone else wanted to move in that direction more. affirmative process where all of the appointments come before us. But in the absence of that, I don't think it should require two-thirds for rejection. I think it should require just a simple majority to reject an appointment. I apologize. I misunderstood.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to... I completely agree with your sentiment on that. I want us to be able to have more authority as regards appointments.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Some of them would pertain if there was a change in the proposed composition. So I'll hold those, but we did receive a communication and I noted as well from the chair of the elections commission that the references to the city clerk in here should be references to the elections commission. And so I would move to make those changes, but I'm also just want to see if that is an issue or if the comment center representatives have any notes on that. If it should stay as city clerk because we technically adopted a law that said the Elections Commission shall act as city clerk and therefore there are Massachusetts general laws that reference the clerk and not the commission. But that seems kind of convoluted.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Yeah. I just think we did hear that note that, I mean, we have the elections commission model. We adopted the mass general law provision. I can't remember what it is now, a couple of years ago. So we have an elections commission running the elections, not the city clerk. So I'll just move to put that in our notes to the call center as they, so that they can make sure that that is accurate in the final draft. reflect the system that we are operating under.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I just, I would have some concerns at 30% if the composition of the council were to be as proposed by the study committee, because there'd be a lot of one-on-one races for seats. And I would think that in that situation, a 30% result would be not representative. So I just want to note that composition wise, that would be a concern for me. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, to that point in your research, have you found there to be a significant difference in incumbency bias between someone who has the label candidate for re-election and someone who doesn't, even if they were serving?
[Zac Bears]: Right, which I think this charter gets rid of.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm just wondering how much, if you had any knowledge on how much that benefit to incumbents is literally the label on the ballot or being able to put Councilor X on their literature or just being in the meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's just where I think, I understand why to say, oh, they wouldn't be able to put that on the ballot, but I don't know that that I'll get to my point around that when we talk about composition of the council. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note of all of those options that being selected by duly elected people versus low turnout special election versus low threshold of voting. being a selection being made by the rest of the council is probably the most representative of the will of the people in that situation, because the people elected the other Councilors. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I appreciate you including this in this meeting. as I was going through a section 9-6 in the existing charter's periodic review of ordinances. And to me, ordinances are the purview of the legislative branch. Of course, the mayor has the ability to sign or veto, but the ordinance authority lies with the legislative branch. And to me, I believe that we should move this section 9-6 to section 2. I relabel it section 2-11. and then I would make two minor changes, which would be that the city council shall provide for a review. Right now it says the mayor and city council, and I would just change that to read the city council, and that the review shall be made by a special committee to be established by ordinance. I would change that to be established by a vote of the city council.
[Zac Bears]: Before we take that- It would be a motion to adopt the language as I propose.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, given Councilor Lemmy's comment, I'm happy to amend my proposal to not strike the words mayor and, and then I also just noticed that I also should have changed that the special committee shall file its report with the city clerk on a date specified by a vote of the city council instead of by ordinance. So I would just further amend my proposal based on Councilor Lemmy's comment and based on that.
[Zac Bears]: This is a suggestion to amend
[Zac Bears]: This motion would move section 9-6 to article 2, make it section 2-11. It would then change the words by ordinance to by vote of the City Council, both in the second sentence and the fourth sentence.
[Zac Bears]: Can I make a motion actually regarding section 2-4 first? Okay. I would just move that we move section 2-4 to a future meeting and to discuss sections 2-4, 3-1 and 4-4 as a single conversation at a future meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tsang, and just given the length of the meeting so far to get through the smaller stuff, I figured this is gonna take a while, I think. And also I think it seems to be the main point of discussion around the proposals that I put forward was around the composition of the council. So just to set the frame here, the charter study committee recommended to the mayor and then through that to the council, city council composed of 11 members, eight representing each individual ward of the city and three elected at large. And something that I discussed in my conversations with the Charter Study Committee and something that I've had a lot of conversations with the past few years has been what the composition of the council should look like. And part of the proposal that I put forward tonight, which is to amend that proposal to have to follow what the Charter Study Committee proposed for the school committee, which would be a city council of seven members, three elected at large, and four from districts, which would be composed of two boards each, stems from three factors. One are my principles, two are the data, and three are my experience serving on the council and serving in the leadership of the council for the past three years. I think we've had a lot of conversation in the state and in the country about how should we elect elected officials. And we're one of only actually I think three countries on a federal level that elects our legislatures by first past the post single district voting. And I think one of the great advantages of the system that we have now, and I'm not advocating that we maintain an all at large system, is that everybody faces a competitive election. There's one district. Everybody's running against each other. There's no sailing through. And there was a great New York Times piece talking about proportional representation. That's a model that the Cambridge Planning Charter uses. And you see, through that model, the election of people of differing ideologies representing different bases of voters. Another conversation that's been discussed is a multi member districts. We also had the statewide ballot question on rank choice voting. And all of those are different ways to try to elect people that is not a first pass the posting. And the reason for that is that a first pass the post single district system tends to have less than ideal outcomes. And I think what is being proposed or was proposed with having a single district first past the post war districts might lead that direction here in the city as well. I have always been a strong supporter of more localized representation. I just think that there are different ways to have ward representation, different ways to have district representation than just saying our only options are all at large or all ward or a hybrid where you have only at large and only ward systems. So I think the charter study committee's proposal for the school committee and the reason that I went in that direction with my proposal is that it was already in the draft. I'd love to have a bigger conversation about more unique and interesting opportunities and options like proportional representation or ranked choice voting or multi-member districts, but those weren't surveyed, those weren't discussed, those weren't put forward as options. I went into the product, the work product of the charter study committee itself and found something that I think met the goal of having more localized representation while also maintaining some of the benefits of the at-large system and while avoiding some of the downsides of having so many of the council seats filled by first past the post single member districts. And that's why I proposed what I proposed. I mentioned a few different items here in my initial memorandum representation. This does bring us to local representation very much so compared to the existing approach of all at large council. accessibility-wise, it would be, I think, easier for voters to understand having a district Councilor, a district school committee member, and then the at-large members. They'd have less voters to, you know, less officials to keep track of, in some senses, or not exactly knowing which side of which street they lived on means that this is their Councilor versus that Councilor. Certainly from an efficiency perspective, there wouldn't be a need for more Councilors, chamber renovations, the meetings being longer because more Councilors are talking. I'm less married to those arguments, although I think they are just facts. And that is to say that I'm not opposed to a larger council. I just don't think that a larger council should be made up of first-past-the-post single-member districts. And some of the great discussion that has happened since I put these out and discussions that I had with lots of folks over the past two, three years, I want to note as well, from a representation perspective, you would have under the ward system of having eight wards versus four districts, significantly different weighting of individuals votes. If you're a voter in ward two or ward three, where you have very, very high turnout, your vote would be much less valuable to the selection of a Councilor than a vote in ward one. And I think that's an issue. I think the district moving to the district model mediates that somewhat. You'd also, from a representation perspective, if you look at, for example, racial demographics, there's essentially no difference in racial demographics between the Ward 6 seat and Ward 8 seats being separate and them being combined. There's somewhat of a difference in the Ward 7 seat versus combining the Wards 1 and 7 seats, but it's, I think, less than five points or maybe less than 10 points of a difference. And then I have talked to councillors as Councilor Scarpelli did in neighboring communities and other communities around the state that have a hybrid ward council representation. And there is a concern about competitiveness of running. You have a lot of uncontested elections for ward seats and I think again, that's one of the main concerns in general with first past the post single member districts is essentially you have two people running against each other. And, um, sometimes no one will run for that seat at all. And you'll have an uncontested race right now in Medford. I can't even remember the last time there was an uncontested race for city council, because I'm pretty sure all the elections in the past 20 years, there's been more than seven people running. Um, I've also heard some concerns about similar to what Councilor Scarpelli raised earlier that I think he, you know, he said those were his concerns before and he feels more alleviated by them from his discussions, but around prioritizing what's happening in one eighth of the city versus the whole city. And I've heard that as well as a concern from people who serve on bodies that have this type of representation. So I believe that this proposal that I put forward moves us significantly towards local representation of neighborhoods of the city without going down to such a small district and maintaining more of a balance between at large and local representation. So that's why I put this forward. I'm really interested to hear the thoughts of my colleagues. Certainly I'm happy to entertain amendments. And I would say that the, you know, the piece of this that I'm least concerned about is a bigger council. I'm not against a bigger council. I just am against a bigger council being formed exactly in this manner. So I hope that we can have a discussion of a model that fits the goals that all of us are seeking and fits, quite frankly, the way that most legislative bodies are elected in most of the world and most of the country, which is not through most of them being elected in first-past-the-post single-member districts. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I appreciate that information as well. It's good to see, and two of the examples I saw in there were Revere and Weymouth, and you had a much more balanced distribution of at-large and district Councilors. Weymouth, I saw in there six, I believe six district five at-large, or maybe it was six at-large, five district, but again, right. And again, district, not ward. I want to make a point that this is local representation, the proposal that I put forward. We had a survey that went out that asked about one way that that could look, and people said we'd like a hybrid between local representation and an at-large. We didn't ask about a number of other ways that that could have been formulated, and we don't know what the survey would have said. other than to say that the survey said they want a hybrid of more local representation and at large representation. People did not want to stay at all at large, by and large, although I think some percentage did. People did not want all local representation. They wanted some form in the middle. And this proposal maintains that. I think it, I've seen a bunch of people who are very anti our revolution, Medford, who say we should stay at all at large. You know, I've seen a number of people who feel differently about that from different political persuasions. I don't think this is about politics in the most base sense. I think people have a lot of different opinions about how this should look. But again, my principle that I have said since I started running, a principle of the Our Revolution Mentored Platform was more local representation and not just having at large representation. And I stand fully with that. And again, another one was about more diversity. The demographics difference between the ward, going to all eight and doing four districts was not really statistically significant demographic difference in that makeup. The idea of a five at large four district, fine with that, too, if making the priority being a larger council, which I know the Charter Study Committee noted, and Chair McDonald has noted online, that having a larger council would make more sense in terms of our comparable communities in Massachusetts. I'm not against that. I just proposed what was proposed for the school committee in the Charter Study Committee's recommendation. And my main concern remains having more of a balance than three to eight of essentially a giant multi-member district for three councilors, which is a more fair way of electing people, and eight single district first past the post elections, which may in fact countervail our priorities for more diversity and more representation if we end up with people incumbents winning those elections and sitting in those seats for 20 years unchallenged because that happens a lot in communities that have a lot of small districts. And again, I just want to note the other point that I made earlier. If we have a bunch of small districts, given the traditional turnout in this community, we're devaluing certain votes and highly more valuing other votes in the city. And I think the district model proposed, whether it's three at large and four district or five at large and four district, it's a better balance between the two. It avoids some of the pitfalls of having votes weighted so differently against each other. And I just think it would serve the community better. That's why I propose this. It's my basic principle of why I propose literally everything I ever do here. So to anyone who may question that for whatever purpose, you're wrong. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I just want to be very clear. I'm not worried about the politics or the elections of any of these models. And I'm quite frankly, really sick of the politicization and the putting words in people's mouth that happens on this council by my colleague. I mean, we're having a discussion about what is a model that would work best for the community? What do we think gets us the best long-term outcomes in terms of good governance for this community? It's not about winning an election. Who's gonna win this election? Who's gonna win that election? It's not about saying that Matt thinks some words don't matter when he never said that. It's not about, you know, you're quoting a platform I helped to write. Right. And you're not quoting it in good faith. It says, I understand what's under you. I've read it. I wrote it. I helped to write it. And thank you. And it said, this is a version of word representation. It's a version of word representation that will be the school committee will have. That's what I'm proposing. And I laugh when I laugh because the absurdity of completely misreading and misstating what I've said and what other Councilors have said and what has been written down is just beyond the pale of having a respectful dialogue in this body. I support a new charter. If this discussion goes the way it seems like it's going, I support a new charter, but the way that it had to get here and the fact that the things that had to be brought up to try to spin it and tweak it and turn it in that way is just so beyond disappointing and beyond frustrating. Because again, the data, who cares, right? We said, who cares about data? I care about data. and the data shows that we would be on the very small end, not just of Massachusetts, but of the country in terms of if we go to word-based representation, Councilors per population. I think that's an important data point. I think the data point that's been raised about the fact that it, whether it's district or ward, doesn't affect the racial demographics of the districts, but does affect the fact that you might end up with uh, you know, long term incumbencies in very small districts or some people winning award seat with 2500 votes and some people winning award seat with 750 votes and then saying, so does that mean that some voters matter less than some voters matter more? That's just a data point. I'm very confident in the ability of everyone here to win elections because we've done it many times. I think we could have and all at large model and win elections and all ward model and win elections. But I just can't stand when the words are being put in our mouth. So it's just really frustrating. Another thing that we talked about was, do we want to fix what's been wrong or do we want to make things better? I don't want to make things worse. And the reason that I put this forward is that I in good faith think that there's a way that the way that this is written out makes things worse. I would support a 15-person city council with seven at-large and eight wards. That's ward representation and an even number of at-large seats. My biggest concern is having a ward-based representation of all eight wards as individual wards with only three at-large city councilors brings in some of the worst practices of elected government in this country and in the state and ruins and takes out some of the best. That's my issue. I think more balance between those two things is a good thing. I don't think at this point that this is going to be well considered, but I'd be willing to do another survey with a few more models and see what people actually support. Cause I don't think we really know. And I don't think we've had a conversation about all of the costs and benefits of making these choices. That's why I put forward what I put forward for no other reason. And I really, really resent the implication to the contrary. And I think quite frankly, that bringing all of the politics into this is what poisoned it and will poison it in either direction. So I really hope that that's something we can get away from on this council as it continues under this form or any other form, because This is a good faith conversation based on data and principles. And when we bring in all this other stuff that nobody brought up except to malign their colleagues, it just leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No one is asking my colleague to apologize for what he believes or for his position on this. Specific things were said that were then mischaracterized to make a point. and I don't take your words and then say, oh, you actually said this other thing that you didn't say. That's the only thing that frustrates me here. That's why, I mean, I didn't say that. It's not about anything like that. I don't think you should believe what you should believe or be able to say, Councilor Scarpelli. But I do think that saying that another member of this council said that some words don't matter when he didn't say that is just beyond the pale. I also want to say that we have a statutory role in this process as members of the city council. There were many times I can think of many votes and I appreciate that councilor Scarpelli's mind has changed on this matter. where a lot of people came up to this podium and said, we think this is what's best for the community to have a charter change. We need a charter review process. We need this council to pass a home rule petition so that we can elect a charter commission and do a charter change. And all of those voices didn't change that mind of that council or other Councilors who voted against it for multiple terms. I also want to say that You've heard of multiple differing opinions from the six people who supposedly all believe the same thing tonight. We don't obviously believe the same thing. We've all said, we believe in different pieces of this. So that's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about, I'm sorry for bringing politics into politics. Of course this is politics. I'm talking about misrepresenting the information and the facts on the matter and the things that people say to score political points, to try to make something seem like what it isn't. because that may serve some sort of purpose, or it may advantage your position, or maybe you'll end up getting the result that you want. It's not something that I do. We can go back and look at the tape. I'm very, very, very consistent in saying that I do, I say what I think should happen, and I try to represent those values and those principles based on the facts and the information that I have at hand. I did want to ask the Collins Center a question about what it looks like in terms of the competitiveness of elections in districts where you have, in cities or other communities in Massachusetts where you have systems like this. Do you see that having, or do you have any data to talk about what it looks like, how many races go uncontested in ward seats versus an all-at-large model? how long incumbent terms are in models like this versus models where there's more competitive elections. Do you have that data available to you? And also, if members of the Charter Study Committee would like to talk about discussions that may have happened in the Charter Study Committee around what this model would mean for competitive elections, incumbency, et cetera.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: So competitiveness of the different models wasn't considered as part of the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I'd be happy to hear personal experience.
[Zac Bears]: So about half the time. Right. And again, I talked to my colleagues in Somerville. I talked to my colleagues in Malden. I talked to my colleagues in Everett. And were you in a ward-based seat?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. A lot of ward-based seats go uncontested. Under the current model of the city council, no one ever goes uncontested. Those are the facts. And I'm not saying let's stay at all at large. The people don't want that. But I'm hearing that we don't have data on competitiveness. We didn't discuss competitiveness. And I think having competitive elections where the people in office are challenged to maintain their seats. is essential and that we should have a form and a structure of democracy that encourages that. And I think that if we're going to move in a direction where there's going to be potentially more uncompetitive elections, that we need a balance there. And I think saying that we're going to have a model where eight of the seats may often be uncontested or at least uncontested half the time, and only three of the seats would be contested more regularly is not a good balance for the competitiveness of elections. And those are the questions that I would like to see looked at more or for us to have a discussion here about looking at a model that has a little more balance considering that we didn't consider those questions and we don't have the answers in front of us. I wanna be challenged, run against me. I don't think this is a model that encourages that. That's why I put this forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. First, I just wanted to state that some of the concerns that former member Van der Kloot raised are exactly the reasons that I have concerns about the model. But I have just two questions for you, Chair McDonald, if I may. In your research from past elections, did you find any council election that went uncontested?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, just given the discussion that we've had tonight and given the discussions that I've been having, would you or leadership of the Charter Study Committee or in partnership with us and the mayor be willing to survey specific options for hybrid representation at this point so that we could determine more specifically what the intent of the people who was surveyed with about the different options that have been proposed?
[Zac Bears]: If we were to move in that direction, would you be open to being consulted in the process?
[Zac Bears]: All right. I just think we actually mostly agree on this. We all agree on a hybrid model of some at large and some local representation, and I think we've spent 90 minutes plus, two hours, and maybe even longer than that, arguing about the specifics of it. And we don't actually have a lot of data beyond the fact that people want a hybrid form of government. And it might behoove us to try to do a scientific poll to actually ask—give people specific options about what that could look like.
[Zac Bears]: Not proportional, not rank choice, none of that.
[Zac Bears]: Like the district versus board.
[Zac Bears]: I want to consult on what we would specifically ask.
[Zac Bears]: But it just seems to me that we basically all agree that there should be a hybrid model where there's some level of local representation and some level of at-large representation, but that beyond that specific question, the residents weren't asked about different models that that could look like. And to be frank, and I understand that some people disagree with this, the Charter Study Committee chose two different options for the two different legislative bodies of the city. And so
[Zac Bears]: I understand why you felt, why this committee's recommendations felt that they could be considered differently. I just think that the reason that I put forward what I proposed is because I saw what you guys wrote for that school committee.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, there's a bunch of different configurations across a bunch of different cities. Right.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not suggesting it's unheard of. I'm just suggesting that—I'll leave it at that. I think we could get more information about the specifics and ask the voters, because I I just think there are some pitfalls that have been for the school committee correctly identified in the formation of the composition of the school committee that I'm very concerned would be very similar for the council if composed differently. And I think it's worth trying to have a deeper answer to that question. So I might propose that. path forward, but.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just to follow up on that, would you consider if we were to adopt the three at large for district or five at large for district for the council for that to be unusual for the legislature to see?
[Zac Bears]: Oh yeah, multi-member district or proportional representation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we're considering that at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Did that amendment also then go to a referendum?
[Zac Bears]: To that end, I'd like to further amend my motion, which has been amended by Councilor Collins, to refer these recommendations to a final committee of the whole meeting to consider all of the proposed recommendations of this committee after the three meetings of the Governance Committee. Thank you. So, do we have a second on? I'm just amending my initial motion. I don't know if there's a second on my initial motion but my initial motion was to make this proposed change and then Councilor Collins amended that to be five at large and four from districts instead of the original proposal and then my final is that this this along with everything else that this committee recommends go to committee the whole for final consideration. Great.
[Zac Bears]: I got you. To further clarify that we hold a committee of the whole to consider all of the recommendations voted on in this committee. So we voted on some recommendations, amendments earlier in the meeting, the smaller ones to the different sections. essentially that we, once we've gone through these three meetings where we split it up, we have a meeting where we review the amended red line draft based on the votes of this committee.
[Zac Bears]: So, basically what I'm just saying is that I think at least as I was understood in this process, up until this point, the recommendations of this committee would have gone directly to the regular meeting. I think it makes sense to have a committee of the whole prior to a final vote of the regular meeting so that we can hear from our two colleagues not on the committee in a committee meeting dedicated solely to this topic. And then the regular meeting vote would be based on something that the whole council had reported out of committee.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, in that committee of the whole that we take all of the motions from this committee and create a red line draft and then we can consider that in committee of the whole before it goes to a regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: just to outline the schedule we're scheduled again to meet on February 4th and then February 19th this would have essentially the only difference here would be considering this on February 25th or March 11th at our regular meeting we would need to consider it on the 11th if we tried to schedule a committee of the whole in advance. So it would be a two weeks of additional consideration. And that does assume that we get through everything in the three governance committee meetings and we don't have to move to the governance committee scheduled for March 4th, which would have put us at March 11th anyway, which is ahead of our goal of getting this done by the end of March. I guess just to the call-in center representatives in terms of moving this through legislatively, is there a material difference of us reporting this to the mayor and the mayor submitting this to the council in early March versus late March in terms of the legislature getting this done in time for us to? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So we need to try to get this to them in early March then as we originally planned. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Medford city council committee of the whole January 21 2025 is called the order Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion items, paper 25014, submitted by the Community Preservation Committee, January 2025, Community Preservation Act funding recommendations. Dear, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, regarding Community Preservation Act funding recommendations for the January 21st, 2025 Community of the Whole. On behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I humbly submit to this body the following recommendations for Community Preservation Act funding appropriations accompanied by individual project descriptions and details. Affordable Housing Trust initial tranche funding, 250,000. Oak Grove Cemetery building restoration phase two, 85,000. Playstead Park tennis courts resurfacing, 526,000. Condon Shell Lighting Improvements, $98,285. Council Chamber Window Restoration, $322,500. Shiloh Baptist Church ADA Improvements, Phase 2, $400,000. Unitarian Universalist Church Exterior Restoration, $99,000. ABCD, Action for Boston Community Development. Medford Move-In Program, $100,000. Respectfully submitted, Teresa DuPont, Community Preservation Act Manager. And I figure I can turn it over to you and we can take it in that order if that works for you. Teresa, great. I'm not touching anything.
[Zac Bears]: The manager.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions by members of the council at this time? seeing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's fine. You also don't stand to benefit personally from it. So it's probably a mixed case, but it's fine. We'll just mark you present when we vote on it. Maybe we can sever that vote.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, you're doing great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the Council or comments on this matter? Seeing none, are there any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing none, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Next we'll move to the Oak Grove Cemetery building restoration phase two. And I'll note for applicants, you know, we appreciate the presentation, but you don't have to come with a PowerPoint. We may have had a highly prepared group go first. We just want to hear about your project and be able to ask questions if needed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Any questions on this project by members of the council? Seeing none. I just wondered, Tim, and give me a minute to pull my records together. From the first part of the project, OK, never mind. It's answered right in here. You're estimating $5 to $8 million for the restoration of, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: OK. And is the idea, have you thought, have you had discussions about potential funding sources for the project?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Seeing no questions on this project for members of the council. Are there any questions by members of the public, either in the chamber or on zoom? Seeing none. Thank you. Commissioner McGovern, we can move to ours. Mr. Bailey's still in the parks commission meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, great. You're on that one. Okay, fantastic. Then we'll go to that. And it says DPW, so that makes sense, too. If you want to present the project for Playset Park tennis court resurfacing for $526,000.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions by members of the council? Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Lazzaro. And then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Skripal and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think there's a Parks Commission meeting happening in room 201 that he's in. I'm not 100% sure. So yeah. That's probably it, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions, members of the council? I don't want to bring up any third rails, but is this going to remain tennis only? or?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions by members of the public on the Placeland Park Tennis Court resurfacing? Seeing no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Thank you, Commissioner. You're welcome. Move next to Condon Shell Lighting Improvement.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mayor Dupont. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions for members of the Council on the Condon Shell? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom regarding the Condon Shell? Seeing none, we'll move to the next item we have. Council Chamber Window Restoration. Do you want to take that to the end or do you want to do it now?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, because this is a historic preservation project. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Correct.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Do we have any questions on this one? And I just have a procedural note, but I'll wait till, do councilors have questions about this? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Is there anything, I'll go to Councilor Leming, and then I'll ask. Go ahead, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to need to figure that out. That was what I was going to bring up. So we're going to need a separate letter from the mayor requesting that we rescind the appropriation of the stabilization fund money. because you can't ask us to do that. No, I can't.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, so that should just be a separate paper on our agenda, because it's an appropriation. I do want to ask if the facilities manager, Paul Riggi, do you have anything you want to add to this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Manager Reed. And Paul, I have one other question. Is this going to include, it's going to be restoration of the wood frame windows, does it also include the shades and that?
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions by members of the council on the window restoration? Councilor Scarpelli, is your hand up for this?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, just wanted to make sure. All right, on that note, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item? And I can't remember the meeting date, but we did go into a little bit more detail on this project in December or November.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Seeing none, we'll move on to the next item, which is our Shiloh Baptist Church ADA improvements phase two, 400,000.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome to both of you.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have any questions by members of the Council? I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And seeing no other questions from the council. I also just want to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I just wanted to add as well, I think it's a great project and serving a lot of community benefit out of it. I know daycare and childcare is so essential. And so to have that space be available for that is really wonderful. And I also hope it brings a lot of improvements to the building as well for all the other uses that people use it for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next, we will go to the UU Church exterior restoration.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful, thank you so much. Any questions or comments by members of the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean I think it's pretty. The standard test is, do you or any immediate family members or associates stand to benefit financially from your vote? And I don't, I mean, that's your call. I don't know. But unless you are going to be hired by the UU Church to do door restoration or someone in your family, which I don't think either of you are. I've attended a couple of services myself. I plan to vote on this. So that's generally the test. If you don't feel comfortable with it, I think we have the quorum and the votes to move forward without you. But yeah, you're not receiving a personal benefit from this project. Okay. Councilor Lazzaro, and you could check with the Ethics Commission. If you wanted to ask them, you could ask them. You have to ask prior to a vote. So if you abstain tonight, you could ask them in advance of the vote at the regular meeting. You could review their regulations online or review the conflict of interest and ethics trainings that we all have to take every year. But generally, I think you're in the clear on this one. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah. I mean, unless you were being hired to do the work itself. That's really the only way I could see this being an issue. An example I can give you, in 2020, I and my family, my parents and I had invested in Medford Brewing Company. Prior to that, we had to, I called the ethics commission, we had to divest and sell our investments in order to, for me to vote on the brewpub ordinance because it would have benefited the, because we were investors. But this, I know it's a church, it's a nonprofit organization. You're not shareholders. you're not paid by the organization, nor will you be paid for the work. So that's my general interpretation. All right. Any other questions on the Unitarian University Church's exterior restoration? By members of the council, seeing none, any thoughts, comments, questions by members of the public? Also seeing none, we can move to the last item, which is ABCD move-in assistance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Caput.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is it is it is it regional?
[Zac Bears]: Um well, any other questions or comments by members of the Seeing none, I just have one, this is our third year? Third year in a row we're doing the move-in program? Great, thank you. All right. That's for a family of four.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Well, that is the conclusion. We'd either make a motion to refer, someone could make a motion to refer this to the regular meeting, and you guys could abstain if you want, or we could sever it. I just want to make sure Councilor Lazzaro and Leming feel comfortable. Okay. We'll move to refer everything but the UU paper severed. That's a motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, and I'll go to Councilor Leming for discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Okay if you're both abstaining then I need a second from Councilor Tseng Collins or Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to sever off the UU. Mr. Clerk please call the roll and refer to the regular meeting. This is a vote to just take the UU project out and advance it to the regular meeting. Just the UU and then everything else.
[Zac Bears]: This is to sever UU and refer UU to the regular meeting. And then we'll vote on everything else in the motion. Yeah. Yes. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. By the affirmative, two present, the motion passes. Is there a motion to refer the remaining papers to the regular meeting? On the motion of council, I'm going to refer the remaining by council Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It was, uh, Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazzaro was the second.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, from the negative, the motion passes. Anything else anyone would like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes. And you can let folks know, you know, next week is relatively pro forma. If folks want to come on Zoom, that's fine. We won't be asking questions. People don't have to take the time out. you know the uncertainty of the council agenda never know how long it'll take appreciate that we're hoping to work on that a little bit but okay i can't make motions on the motion of anyone else to adjourn on the motion of council i mean to adjourn seconded by Councilor Callahan, and I'll just remind everyone we do have coming up in probably about five minutes, Public Works and Facilities Committee discussing some roads updates and volunteer tree planting program that we'd like to get off the ground. So on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from another motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Kiley. You basically answered the question I was going to ask which, but just to kind of clarify and drive the point home. It's much we're using the capital funding much more efficiently this way than we are when we're doing spot repairs with contractors.
[Zac Bears]: And this is both for sidewalks and for street repair. The crew is going to be doing spot repairs where we previously were hiring contractors to do spot repairs like patching and crack sealing and spot panels of sidewalk.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so essentially on both of these fronts we're talking about moving from triaging emergency spot repairs with outside contractors to being able to do all of that work in-house plus maybe even a little bit of production worker, you know, maybe some people might call it, you know. a new project.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then just on the front of the money going towards our roads and sidewalks, and you know, correct me if I'm getting my six-month-old back of the napkin calculations wrong, but We were talking about needing to move into the $5.5 to $6.5 million a year range of spending, and we were somewhere in the $3.5 to $4 million range. So this gets us another $500,000 closer to that $5.5 to $6.5 million range, essentially, because we're going to still be doing. And does the efficiency impact that at all as well? Because we're using the money more efficiently, does it give us an even further added benefit than just adding 500,000 towards that annual repair budget?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I guess just to follow up, you know, when we talk about that $2 million, when we talk about that money in general, we're talking about the money that we're actually spending on We're not necessarily talking about the money we're spending on the staff, per se, or I guess just Yeah, okay.
[Zac Bears]: But we're talking about like the capital costs of like the materials for the project?
[Zac Bears]: Labor, materials. Yes. Even does that even include like police details and stuff like that?
[Zac Bears]: Right. So it's across all bands, I understand that it's complicated to determine you know how much does one person's time equivalent spend if they're doing a million overlay versus a completely redoing the base of the road versus doing crack ceiling I get that it's a hard calculation but it's helpful for me to try to understand right you talked about. um combining cdbg and chapter 90 funds to go towards it sounds like a few seven streets of mills and mill and overlay is that yeah that's all we have targeted at the moment right there will be more right right right and that community development block grant money is set aside for sidewalks within the eligible areas right we're also going for you know other funding sources that aren't
[Zac Bears]: And I guess the question I'm asking, and again, I understand the answer is probably just going to be it's complicated, is can I add up the highway department budget plus the CDBG money we're using this year plus the Chapter 90 money we're using this year plus some other grant money we're using this year and say, well, that all adds up to four and a half million. So that's good. We're above the three and a half million. And I think you're getting there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I think that kind of, you know, the trend-based stuff and the reassessment, I appreciate that that's the direction we're moving in. I know that we're in the kind of the early days of that. You know, I think for me, or it would be helpful for me to understand maybe after the next iteration of it, or maybe it'll take two, I don't know. And maybe it's just gonna be different because of how resources are allocated, but like, what dollar amount of money that we put into preventative maintenance at the lower end of the scale, or into mill and overlay, or into where we just had to completely redo a street, like how much of an increase in the PCI and the SCI did that get us for that money? Because then we can take that and say, okay, if we put, let's say, let's call it three bands. I know it's really about five, but like, let's call it three. Like if we put a million into band one and 2 million into band two and 2 million into band three, we think we'll move up five points in the next two years. Then we can start to understand, I think that financial scope of things a little bit better. At least that's what I would, you know, like us to move towards.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no.
[Zac Bears]: So, right. Yeah, no. And I totally, you know, wasn't trying to throw out unrealistic numbers for you guys to try to meet. It was just totally, you know, we ran.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think at some point also being able to know how much invested in each band, like what does that reduce the backlog by, and I get that that's a little bit of kind of a, right now we're just trying to feel that out.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I appreciate that. And I know last time, or maybe two times ago, we had this conversation, you were talking about how a piece of that dollar amount is the utilities and the work that they do. And obviously you can't quite know how much they're spending.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So they're just evening out the damage that they're doing.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Just a little bit worse because we're trying to minimize how much worse they make it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Well, it's totally worth the a hundred million we're sending to the British owners, right? Totally worth it. Love that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for getting us off to the start of this meeting. And I want to note just that the comprehensive plan and the zoning that we've been implementing based on the comprehensive plan for the city which was developed over two years with input from thousands of residents, is based on a model of neighborhoods, squares, and corridors. We have been looking at corridors so far, and we'll be looking at squares going forward, and this tonight we're talking about neighborhoods and neighborhood residential and I really appreciate that this meeting you know we're taking a second meeting in two weeks to look at a proposal and starting tonight just looking at general ideas and the research that has been done on the neighborhood residential and having looked at the presentation that was sent over by email I I'm really looking forward to the presentation, but also, you know, do have some thoughts and some suggestions that I'm going to make after this meeting and look forward to seeing those hopefully incorporated into the draft that we see in two weeks. And with that, I just want to thank again, the chair and the team that's working on this as well as fellow members of the committee. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We can see the screen share on Zoom. I think it might require maybe with the Zoom update a change in the booth to click the screen share instead of the video.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you, Chair Collins and Councilor Scarpelli for your comments. And thank you Paula and Emily and the team for this presentation. I do have a concern about the level of incremental step up that we see here. And I'm not necessarily saying I'm going to make a motion, and I'm not saying that it has to go exactly by the lines in this proposal as exists now. But I think for neighborhood residential, it really should just be NR1, NR2, and NR3. And perhaps we could consider something like NR4 as an urban residential one and an urban residential two. And I think that would be a more incremental change to allow for more of what we see actually existing in a lot of these places compared to the zoning that was passed in many cases decades after homes were constructed. That limited what could be built beyond what's actually there and created all the nonconformities that we have. So I would recommend, and I'm gonna make a motion and I will email it to the clerk. And I do have a second motion, but I would move to adjust the proposed neighborhood residential districts by one, removing the NR4 district type and considering that as part of the urban residential topic as a potential urban residential one district. Classifying all the areas currently on this proposal listed with some adjustments based on the work that you guys are going to do to go down to the parcel level. Currently on the proposal listed as NR1 and NR2 as NR1. Classify the areas currently in the proposal listed as NR3, as NR2. and classify all the areas currently listed on the proposal as NR4, as NR3, and to adjust the NR3 type to remove the one unit by right, which I think will meet some of the changes. And then I would also just note that any parcel where the current district is general residential should be at least NR2. and that any district where the current zoning is an apartment district should be NR3.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'll do that. And I have a further motion, but I know folks want to discuss that one first. It's a significant change.
[Zac Bears]: I think, yes, that's fair. And I'm emailing it now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make my other motion, which is to request that the chair work with the administration to increase accessible materials, notices, and communications about upcoming meetings and distribute them to the community. and I've sent the language for both of these over. I have to step out in a few minutes, five minutes, but I'm happy to answer any questions on my motion now and potentially consider them if possible. But if not, I hope my colleagues will consider them and approve them.
[Zac Bears]: It would be the second one. It's essentially downstepping each of the shades. So the very light yellow would stay the same, the medium yellow would go down to the light yellow, the lighter orange would go down to the medium yellow, and the dark orange would go down to the lighter orange.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that's the intent.
[Zac Bears]: Test 1, 2. Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, January 14, 2025. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Action and discussion item tonight is paper 24510, the loan order for school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds. We did discuss this in December and approved for first reading and also requested a committee of the whole to have a further discussion about the project. And with that, I'm happy to recognize folks from the city and school administration who are here tonight, unless councilors would like to ask any questions or make any statements beforehand. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: A report on the MSBA process?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, I will go to the assistant superintendent, climate planner, and you can call up any of the project experts as is helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate the thorough presentation. Does anyone have any questions for our representatives from the city and schools or for the design team? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Would you like to add anything?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the council at this time? I see none. Oh, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley. Any further discussion? Seeing none, this paper is on the regular meeting agenda to be take, can be take. It's eligible for third reading tonight. So I don't think any action is required from this meeting. It was an informative meeting prior to consideration of that vote. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: No, you don't have to do it. I'm saying it's not, we don't have to, like the paper doesn't need to be reported out. All right, I'm seeing nothing else I will just say in terms of financial update and capital update. I have been working to coordinate with the administration around a capital update, especially around the stabilization fund. I haven't received an update as to whether we will get an updated capital improvement plan in full. prior to the budget. I've also been working to coordinate a meeting, which is required by the budget ordinance that we passed last year on the quarter one and quarter two finances. So I am hopeful to get committees of the whole meetings on capital and a financial update for the city scheduled with the administration. Councilor Scarpelli. Thanks. As no action is needed, I think we can just move to adjourn unless there's anything else you'd like to add before we finish.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much, Councilor Leming. I think this is great.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. And for anyone watching, we will be meeting at seven o'clock for a regular meeting. Mr. Clerk. Oh, we don't need a roll call. All those in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Opposed.
[Zac Bears]: upon me as President of the Medford City Council, as President of the Medford City Council, according to the best of my ability, according to the best of my ability, and understanding, and understanding, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, the laws of this Commonwealth, the laws of this Commonwealth, and the ordinances of the City of Medford, and the ordinances of the City of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to thank my colleagues for the honor of serving as President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 25003 offered by Vice President Collins, resolution to adopt the standing committee rules from the prior year. Be it resolved that the standing committee rules be adopted as the standing rules of the city council insofar as they're applicable. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of vice president comes to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I oppose the motion passes to 5004 offered by Councilor Collins, be it resolved that the city council transfer all papers and committee or on the table from the 2024 Council to the 2025 Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: opposed the motion passes announcements accolades remembrances reports and records to 5008 offered by councillor Scarpelli be it resolved that the Medford City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of john granada john was a lifelong resident of the city of medford where he raised his amazing family mr granada worked and retired from the Middlesex Sheriff's Department Mr. Granada volunteered for so many projects for a great city that there are too many to list, but a few come to mind. His work with the veterans of the American Legion Program honoring our vets on Veterans Day with this program at the Oak Grove Cemetery. He and the Granada family created and ran the nonprofit pancreatic cancer awareness program, Granada Scary Trust that raised over $1 million over many years for cancer research. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It resolved that the Medford City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of Ralph Evangelista. Ralph leaves his wife, Loretta, and two daughters, Julianne, and former City and School Department employee, Lisa Evangelista. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of December 17th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees, 24-511 offered by Councilor Bears, Committee of the Whole, December 17th, 2024. Sure. Sorry about that. On the request of Councilor Scarpelli, we're gonna take a moment of silence on the two condolences. Everyone could please rise. Thank you. On the reports of committees, we have paper 24511, which is a committee of the whole to discuss and caucus for council leadership for the year. 2025. We just held those votes earlier in this meeting. Is there a motion to approve? A motion approved by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24006, Committee of the Whole, December 18, 2024. This was on the update to the 2024-2025 Council Governing Agenda. which we went through in pretty, was a very detailed meeting. And is there a motion on that? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. We had one committee report left off. Is there a motion to take it under suspension?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to suspend the rules to take paper 24468 under suspension, that's the governance committee report January 7 2025, seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I oppose motion passes Councilor say, there we go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 25-005 offered by Councilor Sagan, Councilor Leming. Whereas most of Medford's financial electoral personnel assessment and other information is not readily available for bulk analysis. Whereas analysis of such data would advance the City Council's goals of greater transparency and resident participation by allowing the city staff and residents to share and analyze data. Be it resolved that Medford create a system for residents to engage with data collected by the city of Medford and collaborate with city partners on policy development. Be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, whereas this is in the refer to committee for further discussion section, I will entertain a brief summary before this goes to committee for the discussion, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank Councilor Tseng on the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to the resident services and public engagement committee seconded by Councilor Leming Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take papers to 5006 to 4510 to 4502 and 23055 seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes to 5006 resolution to support families of youth with disabilities offered by Councilor Leming and Councilor Callahan. Whereas youth with disabilities need support during their developmental years, whereas parents of youth with disabilities are under supported and often have often have to go outside municipalities to find programs for their kids. And whereas after school programs are rare in Medford and those support that support youth with disabilities are non existent. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council strongly encourage the administration to prioritize these members of our community by finding a way to quickly set up programs that meet their specific needs. Be it further resolved that the City Council listen to the comments of parents of youth with disabilities on their own experiences in finding support. Councilor Leming, and then I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And before we hear directly I just want to say thank you to Trisha and all the parents. who've been working on this for years. I want to thank former school committee member McLaughlin who's here with us tonight and who has been a voice on the school committee as well. And I want to acknowledge this is the second night in a row that a lot of parents have turned out. They were at school committee last night and we saw, I think, some significant progress last night with some investments in programming that parents have really been asking for. And that quite frankly would not have been possible if we didn't have the supplemental budget. from the override and I think prioritizing these investments was one of the reasons that we did that. And I really want to thank everyone who advocated and also the school committee for making those decisions last night. So, and just also thank Vice Chair Graham who, Vice Chair Graham and I had an initial meeting and a lot has blossomed since then that I'm grateful to see. So with that, if there's any other Councilors who'd like to share anything, Before we open to the public, I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli then Council is our Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll open the floor to public participation. If folks would like to speak, they can make a line behind the podium or raise their hand on Zoom. And I also just want to note before we do that, that I know that a lot of people speaking here are everyday advocates. And part of what I think we're hearing here is how can the community step up for these parents and these families so that we're all advocating together for inclusion and immersion and some of the things that I've been most proud to see in the city. When we have young people of all abilities, working together on different things in our schools and in our community. So with that, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. There's no one on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. And I'm going to go on to Zoom. We have Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, I'm gonna request to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Go to Marie on Zoom. Marie, I'm gonna ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Can you just give your name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll try to keep it going. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Lazzaro and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm glad we're having this meeting because I think we're generating more threads and more things that we can work on. Sounds like Councilor Tseng and Councilor Scarpelli have both been talking to Director Bailey about some different programs. And I also just want to make a pitch since I can't make motions, I'll make a pitch. We had a really concrete ask for a part time support uh person in the city and we can't appropriate money but we can request and maybe if someone wants to make a motion that that be our first budget request of the budget cycle start a couple months early that's something we could attach to this paper tonight so I can't do that myself I I would. Councilor Scarpelli uh seconded by Councilor Leming and oh and Councilor Leming has more to say about that so go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor
[Zac Bears]: So I'll call it a motion from Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Leming to amend the paper to make a budget request for the fiscal 26 budget cycle to the mayor for additional staff to coordinate and support youth with disabilities in the recreation department with further discussions to come. Yes, that sounds good. Great. Do you also want to amend to make a suggestion around community development block grant?
[Zac Bears]: Alright, but we can keep that thread going. I know there's a lot more than just what's on the page here. Yeah. Um so with that, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's been a long few years. All right, well, thank you everybody for this discussion. And I know there's a lot more work ahead. And of course we have to work with all the folks who make government churn, but we will continue to work on that. On the motion of Councilor Leming and Callahan, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and Leming, as seconded by Council Vice President Collins, any further discussion? Sure. That was thank you all, and we will be back. Thank you. All right. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Paper 24510, the loan order for our school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds eligible for third reading. January 14th, 2025, was advertised in the Medford Transcript and Several Journal December 26th, 2024. And this is the meeting, we just had a meeting on this at 6 p.m. for further presentation regarding the school HVAC and infrastructure and roof bond projects at the McGlynn Complex and the Andrews Middle School. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And yes, as discussed, this is the first part of the project and we're going to be hearing more once some of the final pre-purchasing and other elements are completed And again, folks can take a look at the recording of the meeting that we had at six o'clock tonight if they want to see the full presentation. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Kelly and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the loan order for third reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 24-502, amendments to the Community Controller Public Surveillance Ordinance. First reading, December 17th, 2024. Advertised Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, December 26th, 2024. Eligible for third reading, January 14th, 2025. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 23055, welcoming city ordinance. First reading, December 17th, 2024. Advertised December 26th, 2024, Medford transcript and summer roll journal. Eligible for third reading January 14th, 2025. I will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So there's a motion to approve for third reading as amended to remove the last clause of our second sentence in section 50103B, seconded by Councilor Leming. I'll go to Councilor Leming and then Councilor Skarpuk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarborough.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Sorry, I'm going to Councilor Kellogg.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Leming to approve for third reading as amended. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? I have a hand on Zoom. If anyone would like to speak at the podium, they can go to the podium as well. We'll start with Dennis on Zoom. Dennis, I'm going to request to unmute you and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes. Sorry, one second, Gaston, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: All I can say is I agree with the spirit of your question of what is the point of this. State law requires that we advertise in a print newspaper these ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: You can find about five copies at 7-Eleven. I used to be a subscriber when it covered Medford up until about 2022. And then Gannett Company essentially gutted all of the local newspapers that they owned, merged some together, reassigned reporters to different beats. And we no longer had a Medford beat reporter, which is the situation we've been in for two and a half years if folks can correct me on the timeline a little bit. But this was advertised in the print version of the Medford transcript in Somerville Journal. The clerk can can provide the receipts. And to be honest, I think this There's a state law around advertising that harkens back to the time when most everybody got a local newspaper and actually read through the advertisements to see what was going on in the city. So we advertise public hearings in the paper, we advertise second readings of ordinances in the paper. We also, of course, put up the agendas and write everything on our website and the portal that we have. But the state requires us to post in print paper of record.
[Zac Bears]: And they might have a new. I don't know if they publish everything from the print newspaper online. I don't think they do. So yeah, that's.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I have seen I was reading through the end of session bills to see if something that we had put forward had gone through at the legislature they just had their end of session, December 31, I think 2024 lasted maybe a little longer at the state house and everywhere else. I'm just kind of saying that I saw a title of a community that had filed a home rule petition to request that they could post these things on a bulletin board on their city website instead of in a paper. I think we would have to ask the state to allow us an exemption from the state law to do so.
[Zac Bears]: No, I appreciate it. It's a procedural quirk that deserves some explanation. So thank you. All right, I'm gonna go to Zoom. We'll go to Steve Schnapp on Zoom, and then we'll go back to the podium. Steve, I've requested you to unmute. You'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. No one on Zoom, so we'll remain at the podium. name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go back to Zoom. Muneer Jumanis, I'll ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay on Zoom. I'll go to Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Eileen, please direct your comments to the chair, and I'm gonna have to give Councilor Scarpelli a chance to respond. Please direct your comments to the chair. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, you had a minute left. I'm going to go back to you if you'd like to finish your comment, but please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know, I think- Please direct your comments to the chair. Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments, I appreciate that. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Let me turn on the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no further discussion by members of the Council or members of the public on the motion of Councilors saying we have one more hand on Zoom. Just in the nick of time, we'll go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom and you'll have three minutes. Give me one second. Andy, if you could, I'm requesting you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Seeing no further discussion by members of the public or members of the council on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading as amended by Councilor Tseng and seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk please call the role.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained for adjournment. All right. Could we take the hearings in the VIC? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, the community, the CPC. I didn't even realize that was on here. Under suspension, Councilor Scarpelli wants to take 25007. And 25013, the building department. All right. And we have the veteran services director too, so 24, 3, 5, 1. Veteran service director Shaw's here too for 24, 3, 5, 1. It's the resolution to allow the director to offer housing incentives to veteran renters. We'll do all three of the fun ones where we have some city staff present. So we'll start with 25-007 submitted by the mayor, community preservation. Sorry, I have to get my papers together here. We have a request from the CPC to dear community preservation appropriation request from the mayor, dear president bears members of the city council on behalf of your community preservation committee, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendation of the CPC requesting the appropriation of 146,000 from the CPA general reserve to the office of planning development and sustainability for phase two of the car park renovation project. This project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. We have the CPC recommendation letter attached and incorporated. CPA Manager DuPont and City Planner Centrella are in attendance. And we do have the signed letter from the chair of the CPC, who was here, but she had to go. All right. I'll go to Manager DuPont if you want to give a presentation on this.
[Zac Bears]: great. We have planner Centrala. You're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: Just want to say thank you. I know that a lot of work has gone into trying to figure out how to make sure that all the deadlines worked out on this project. I know it was some intense management, so I just want to thank you for that. Are there any questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there anything you'd like to add? Oh, I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: thank you on the motion to approve by councillor collins seconded by councillor saying any further discussion by members of the council seeing none is there anything you'd like to add uh theresa oh sorry
[Zac Bears]: I think we're federal, state, local on this one, if I'm correct.
[Zac Bears]: Federal, state, and local on this one.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. On the motion, any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thank you. All right. We'll do 24.351, a resolution to allow the director of veteran services to offer housing incentives to veteran renters, whereas veterans in the city of Menford need a place to live and are often discriminated against when searching for housing. be it therefore resolved that the veteran services director shall have the authority to offer available funds to entities that choose to rent to qualified veterans. Be it further resolved that this be discussed with the veteran service director and the city's legal representation and committee. It looks like this has been done and we have a report out from the um resident services and public engagement committee uh here to amend uh the revised ordinances chapter two administration article four officers and employees division seven director of veteran services there are some minor amendments to um add pronouns, all the pronouns in this ordinance were just he and this adds she on her. And then also under section, creates a new section, section 2-765 called housing incentives. which says the directive of veteran services may in coordination and in the sole discretion with an in the sole discretion authorization of the mayor and subject to the available appropriation and compliance with applicable legal considerations including and not limited to general law chapter 30 b which is our procurement law partner with a non-profit organization which may offer cash incentives up to $750 annually to landlords who offer rental housing to qualified veterans. And then it amends the reserve section number to reflect the addition of the new section. I will go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. So we do have motion by Councilor Leming to waive the readings and approve this ordinance to be ordained this evening. We do have Director Shaw here. Before we move to more presentations, if you'd like to share anything about this proposal and how you got there and what you'd like to be able to do in your office, I think that would be really great. And thank you for working with us on this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much director. Do we have any questions by members of the council? Seeing none, there is a motion to waive the three readings and approve. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Per the state law, we can only I'll waive the three readings and ordain in one meeting if there is no objection. Is there any objection from any Councilor to waive the three readings and ordain these changes tonight? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve this ordinance and ordain it and waive the three readings. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. Thank you so much for working on this, and I look forward to you to be able to do this.
[Zac Bears]: All right, we will move to 25013, a resolution to discuss policy changes in the building department, be it resolved, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the city council call for an emergency meeting with the mayor and her administration dealing with the halt of overtime for the building department, whereas the building department and building inspectors have legally and historically been called to any call with the fire department or to incidents dealing with building structures and that they were recently informed they will no longer be involved in this process after business hours, be it further resolved that we request sorry, be it further resolved that we request that the mayor apply with guidance with what department will be overseeing this task, and whereas public safety is our first priority, be it further resolved that we request that the mayor bring in state past practice in dealing with these emergency response processes, and whereas we have learned that the former building commissioner has moved on to another community, be it further resolved that the city council receive a report on why he's still being paid by the City of Medford. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. I'll also note that we did receive a communication from the Mayor and the Mayor is present on Zoom along with the Chief of Staff. Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, I got to turn you on. My bad. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. President. Thank you. We did also, since you raised it, we did receive a communication regarding the drug testing at the DPW. Do we have a Deputy Commissioner French on Zoom? It looks like we might. I'm happy to unmute you if you'd like to read the email that you sent to us into the record, and then given the discussion we do have the mayor here, and I'd recognize the mayor after that, but Deputy Commissioner, if you want to share that information with us.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you, and thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: I think we also have the chief of staff and the acting fire chief with us as well.
[Zac Bears]: No worries, we can give you a second.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I believe Scott's looking for his.
[Zac Bears]: I think he just found that he's going to read it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, deputy commissioner. Councilor, I'm gonna recognize the mayor or the DPW commissioner, whichever one would like to speak next. I see the mayor, and I'll recognize the mayor. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else from the administration who would like to say anything, Madam Mayor?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I will move to questions and comments from members of the council. We'll start with Councilor Scarpelli. Please, everyone else, use the request feature on your microphones.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we have the commissioner, the deputy commissioner of DPW, the chief of staff, I think, and the mayor still, and the HR director, and I think we might have the acting fire chief as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So we had questions for the administration. If I mischaracterize, I'm just going to repeat them just so that we get them across. We had one for DPW. director and deputy commissioner and deputy commissioner, which was what was done about drug issues in the DPW before the drug testing occurred.
[Zac Bears]: Was the policy followed? And I see the mayor's hand on that. And then I had another question that we'll go to that after, but I'll go to the mayor and then if the commissioner or deputy commissioner wanna follow up. Madam Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: I'll recognize Commissioner McGivern, DPW Commissioner McGivern.
[Zac Bears]: deputy commissioner, if you could add to that and also the follow up question of did anybody test positive?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor. Probably one second. You're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: But the- Thank you, Mr. Deputy Commissioner. And just I'd like to remind everyone to please let me recognize them so that we don't get into a back and forth. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'm recognizing you, Deputy Commissioner, if you could answer now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, we had one other question. I believe Councilor Scarpelli, you wanted to ask why former Commissioner Forty is still working for the city. Correct, yep. I don't know if the mayor wants to answer that question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And then also, I just want to know if any other councilors have questions, please let me know. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um yes, Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you. to go back to the- We'll go to the podium in a second. Is there any comments by members of the council? Seeing none and seeing nothing from the city staff, I will go to the podium for public participation. Mr. South, there was someone behind you. I'd like to take people in order. Okay, if that's all right with you. And we had a hand on Zoom, so I'll alternate. We'll go name and address the record and you have three minutes, Mr. South
[Zac Bears]: The hand on Zoom has gone down, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll always stand by them. Thank you, Mr. Young. Deputy Chief, we went about double time there. So I appreciate it. gave you a little extra time, but we're just going to move to move on. But thank you for the comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the chief of staff and then I'll go to you, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Chief of staff Nazarian, name and address record. And actually, Madam Chief of staff, before you go, Mr. Young, we're not deciding on this policy as a council tonight. I just wanted to, you know, Whatever we vote tonight doesn't actually change what the mayor or the administration chooses to do or the policies that they set. We don't have the ability to set the policy, but we can ask questions, which is what we're doing. Thank you. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Stay young if you can, because that- I don't want to get into a back and forth. It's not the purpose of public participation.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then I'll go to Vice President Collins, and then we can come back around to the rules. We can give another minute after everyone else who wishes to speak in public participation has spoken. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue from the public who has not spoken yet? Seeing none, unless Councilor Collins, do you want to go or do you want to go finish public participation? We can go back. We have one minute, Deputy Chief.
[Zac Bears]: I will Madam Chief of Staff, I don't know if you want to talk about what the policy is when neither commissioners available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I'll go, we'll finish the public participation. I'll go to the podium, name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further comment? I'll go to the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further discussion by members of the Council on this item or any further public participation? Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, if you have that in writing, could you submit that to the clerk? Councilor Scarpelli? Could you read that again, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: And just to be clear, we do not have the authority to change this policy.
[Zac Bears]: So we have the B paper as read by Councilor Collins and Councilor Scrappelli, would it be fair to say that your original paper is now just be it resolved that we request that the mayor reinstate past practice in dealing with these emergency response processes?
[Zac Bears]: So that's the B paper and the A paper. Any further discussion by members of the council on either paper? We'll have public participation. Go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Danielle, if you don't mind, I actually have a question for you for a second. Again, the council doesn't make these determinations. I understand. But I want to just clarify for my own understanding. Right now, a call would go out through dispatch. The building commissioner or the former commissioner, if the building commissioner is not available, would answer. And they would make a determination about what their staff would do. And the prior policy was that the staff themselves would make a decision about who would go out to this, if they would go out to the site or not.
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. OK. And so you would, I guess, in the past practice, you would call the individual cell phone number of one of the inspectors.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I'm just saying, it sounds like what the administration is trying to change to say, that the call goes to the building commissioner and then if the building commissioner makes a determination, that's the chain of command to the people who work for the building department.
[Zac Bears]: But my point being that the building inspector is just changing who's making the determination.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just saying. To be honest, we're coming to this body that has no authority to do anything about this.
[Zac Bears]: And the administration is basically, it seems to me the administration has said, we would like a different, we want the building commissioner to determine instead of the individual building inspector to determine when to go out. And it sounds like there's, that has been a change that has caused some issues that some people are saying has caused some issues that need to be worked out. to be frank, it's the prerogative of the mayor if the mayor wants to say this is the person who makes that decision. Now, it doesn't mean that that doesn't mean that the process is working perfectly. And like, I just want to say like, it sounds like some communication needs to happen or like things need to be adjusted. But just to say that there are two options, and the option is that only the building inspector can decide to go out whenever they want, or the mayor's way is working perfectly. I don't think either of those things are absolutes. So I'm not comfortable myself right now saying we must go back to the old system. It sounds like there's some sort of disagreement internally or lack of communication internally that's going on within the executive branch and the people who work for the city that I agree like we would like to get more information on and understand how it's worked out. But I just don't think this is as easy as to say, There are only two ways to do this. And if you don't agree with this one way, I mean, it's just so far outside of our scope.
[Zac Bears]: I will go. I have a bunch of Councilors, and then I'll go back to the podium. I'm going to go to the Councilors, and I'm going to go back. I'm not sure who went first, so I'll go to Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Well, can I do that right before we vote?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, could you read the B paper, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Go one minute, Mr. Young, Deputy Chief. You want me to turn on your microphone?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Fiori, name and address for the record. Three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you want me to go to public participation or do you want to go? I just want to clarify.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kiley and Councilor Collins accepts the amendment. Mr. Staub, since you spoke once, you can speak one more time for one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, any further discussion? I would remind all my fellow Councilors that they can call the question on any question at any time. All right, so we'll start with the B paper as amended. The B paper by Vice President Collins as amended by Councilor Callahan and seconded by... Is there a second on the B paper? Councilors saying... Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16. If I remember one negative, the motion passes. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: That was the B paper by Councilor Collins. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion passes. On the A paper by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by. Is there a second? on the second, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. As amended to read, be it resolved that we request the Mayor and State pass practice in dealing with these emergency response processes. A, sorry, I said A, right?
[Zac Bears]: That's the A paper.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: No. 1 in the affirmative, 6 in the negative. The motion fails. Hearings 24514, amendment to the special permit for signs 3850 Mystic Valley Parkway, Meadow Glen. This is a public hearing that is continued from December 17th, 2024. I'm opening the public hearing. Do we have the proponent for this project? We do. Thank you for staying with us. Councilor Scarpelli is the chair of the subcommittee on licensing permitting and signs. Let me just recognize you microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Pending the motion to approve, I've reopened the public hearing to anyone who'd like to speak for, against, or in any other way about the project. We have someone at the podium. Please provide your name and address, and you can share if you're in favor of the project. And it looks like you have a presentation. If you'd like to make it at this point, we'd happily entertain it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: You can abbreviate the reading. We have a copy.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: All I can say, sir, is my preference was that we took this agenda in order.
[Zac Bears]: And sadly, I am not able to make motions, so here we are. It sounds like Councilor Scarpelli has reviewed and has made a motion to approve. There's seconded by Vice President Collins. Are there any questions by members of the council regarding the signed proposal, which is a special permit to overturn a denial? An amendment, sorry, an amendment to an existing special permit. My apologies. Seeing none, is there any discussion or any other public comment by members of the public? Seeing none in person or on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirming the negative motion passes. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. Thank you. Happy New Year.
[Zac Bears]: Petitions, presentations and similar papers. 25-010 petition for a common Vixor license by the establishment located 175 Rivers Edge Drive, business certificate 201. We have the petition, fire department, building department, health treasurer, state tax number, workers comp form, letter of compliance, police and traffic in front of us. Councilor Scarpelli, chair of lights to Birmingham signs. Is there anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Give me one second. And if you could just provide your name.
[Zac Bears]: Um, and just so I have your name for the record. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Two questions, if you don't mind. No, go ahead. Or Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Just, are you keeping the, there's kind of a back room that was, you could use for kind of private function, is that what you're doing?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And what kind of food will you guys just- Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And any live music?
[Zac Bears]: As the son of a live musician, I won't hold it against you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, um, any further questions by members of the council or any comments by members of the public on this item? Seeing none, we'll take a vote, but I expect that it will be a positive vote. Um, and we wish you best of luck, um, on the motion of council vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Scarapelli to approve. other way around. Motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table papers 25-011 and 25-012 to the next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Kalyan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe. The motion, no, yes. Motion passes to table six to one. We still have, hold on, hold up. Everybody slow down. Public participation. We're taking public participation. Is there anyone in the room or on Zoom who would like to participate? Talk about anything they want for three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My best suggestion is ask Councilor Scarpelli. No, no, no. He's not always responsive. And with that, I'm going to recognize.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, mine are short.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to recognize Councilor Collins the Councilors are vice president.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think personally that, I'll go to Councilor Leming, but that's just what enabled filibustering to obstruct. Councilor Leming. Motion to adjourn. On the motion to adjourn, seconded by, I certainly wouldn't have a mind by saying this item is over now, so that we can get to everything on the agenda. On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's 60 from the one that even though she passes me and he's adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Test one, two.
[Zac Bears]: Present
[Zac Bears]: here we go. Thank you Chair Tseng. I appreciate the work that you've put into outlining a timeline for the council to consider the proposed draft from the mayor based on the recommendations of the Charter Study Committee. I think that this timeline makes sense. My biggest concern is around inviting the participation of the school committee and the other boards and commissions. So I think having that as our final meeting gives them time to provide feedback. I have heard from some members of the school committee and some chairs of boards and commissions that they would like to provide some feedback on the proposed draft. So giving them as much time as possible to do that, I believe makes a lot of sense. Of course, the mayor has already reviewed this document and made, I believe, changes from the initial recommendations of the study committee to what we see here today. So having that be the second meeting also makes sense to me and discussing all of that, but I just wanted to note that she had a swing at this already. Um, and then I think, you know, our first meeting being discussing the council also makes a lot of sense, uh, because we haven't had a look at this yet. Um, this is our first look and we are likely, I think, to make some changes and amendments similar to what the mayor has done. So, um, I think this is a good timeline. I do have a few motions that I want to make towards the end of the meeting after we hear more discussion around just have some questions, some thoughts around procedures and how we'll get more information and of course solicit that input from the school committee and the boards and commissions. But I'm also really interested to hear what my fellow Councilors think about the draft that we see so far. what articles may need the most attention versus what articles may not need as much. And then I also think, and it's technical, I think we may, there's also a question about article 10, which I just don't think we listed. That's okay. It's just transitional provisions. So I think it's really not actually it basically just says everything continues as this moves forward. But we may want to talk about that towards the end as well. But I think I don't really that seems to be really technical and more just about. the form of how adopting this new charter impacts the existing charter. So I don't think that would be of significant discussion. At least I don't think so. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I just wanted to note to Councilor Collins point the composition questions. I think some of the main concerns are going to be the composition and term length of the different bodies that we would discuss the council as our part of it's part of Article two, the mayor is part of Article three, and then the school committee is part of Article four. So those would be happening across the three separate meetings. It's probably, I think, actually good considering that those are certainly major suggested changes being proposed. Also, compensation is across those three. So that's just another thing we're going to have to take a look at, maybe put to bed forever, which I think everyone would appreciate. And I do have some thoughts on feedback. My first thought is that councilors, and it's obviously not necessarily, you know, folks are going to have ideas and questions in the moment, and it's not to preclude that, but to request if folks do have suggested changes or questions in advance, I would move that we request that councilors submit those in writing to the clerk. by the Thursday before the upcoming meeting so that those can be added into the packet for all of us to see and take a look at. and also to request that Councilors submit questions for the call-in center to Chair Tseng by the one week before the meeting, just so we can give them some time to prepare. That doesn't mean we won't have questions in the moment or that answers to our questions may spawn new questions, which I think we've seen, but I just think getting some of that in writing earlier will help the call-in center come prepared, help us come prepared. So that would be my motion to request councilors submit in writing points of discussion or specific amendments on the Thursday prior to each meeting on the topics for each meeting and to submit questions for the call-in center to Chair Tsang one week prior to each meeting so that Chair Tsang can submit those to the call-in center.
[Zac Bears]: you chair saying yeah I have I can just go through my the rest of what I have I'd also make a motion to request that feedback from the school committee and any boards and commissions be received by Wednesday February 12th for consideration for the meeting on February 19th and of course this can be submitted earlier than that if there are topics that boards and commissions or the school committee want to discuss in those first two meetings, but I think a lot of that, I think there's a bunch of stuff about multi-member bodies in the section in Article 9, the school committee in Article 4. So that last meeting seems to be where most of that discussion would happen, so that's where I'm suggesting that motion. And then I'd also make a motion to, well, if you want to consider that, I can do my motion.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. My third motion would be requesting that the Collins Center provide a memorandum, if possible, outlining which provisions of this draft, one, make no change to the existing charter, two, change provisions of the existing charter, and three, create new provisions which aren't included in the existing charter. And that is just, you know, I have a decent idea of that, but I'm not 100% sure. I can email that to you, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, yeah, it's just requesting a memorandum if they could possibly, and I get maybe it's not possible for them to do this, but to outline for this draft, what is not changing what is changing and what is brand new, essentially. Because I think that comparative, you know, one of the reasons we're doing this is because the charter is so opaque. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just had one last one and it's just to and I'm just getting this to the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I just emailed it as well, but my last request is just that the mayor included an announcement, the upcoming dates for these meetings in like the city of Medford events update online by text and by robocall, just so that folks are informed that these are the upcoming meetings for the city charter process for the council.
[Zac Bears]: I move to join the motion and approve.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Meanwhile, I'm trying to give it away. I'll be brief, and I just want to thank everyone for your trust in me to serve as president for another year. It is not easy work, and we have even more difficult work ahead to hire a city clerk and work with our new city clerk and our clerk staff to get that office where it needs to be and even better than it ever has been. So that's going to be an important project. I look forward to working with whoever is nominated for Vice President on that work. And something that I talked about on Sunday at the inauguration is just how important it is that we work hard to restore some faith that even when we disagree, we are hearing each other, we're respecting each other, and we can work together to get things done. We're never going to all agree on everything that happens in this chamber or what happens in the city. We're going to have some loud disagreements sometimes, but I think the important part is that people feel like they can say their piece, and then when a decision is made, people feel like they were at least able to be heard out by those who disagree with them. That's something that I've been thinking about a lot over the last six months and what I want to bring to the next two years here on the City Council. So I'm really excited to do that alongside all six of you and work with our assistant clerk here, Rich Alicio, to do that as well. And hopefully as well honor our friend Larry Lepore and get a city messenger back over in a seat over there or maybe in a new role doing some different things, but moving that role forward. That's on our agenda tonight as well and I hope someone here can help lead the charge, because we need that position filled. So just want to say thank you again, and let's get to work. And George was supposed to say that I was supposed to be sworn in, so I better do that first.
[Zac Bears]: I, Isaac B. Zach Bares, do solemnly affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as President of the Medford City Council.
[Zac Bears]: Agreeable to the rules and regulations. Of the constitution. Of the constitution. The laws of this commonwealth. The laws of this commonwealth.
[Zac Bears]: And the ordinances of the city of Manfred. Congratulations, sir. Thank you. Thanks. All right, on to the fun stuff. 26002, election of a city council vice president for 2026. Do we have nominations for Vice President of the City Council, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan nominates Councilor Lazzaro. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Are there any other nominations for Vice President of the Medford City Council? Seeing none, nominations are closed. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, call the roll and you will say the person's name.
[Zac Bears]: with six for Councilor Lazzaro and one present. Councilor Lazzaro is elected vice president for 2026. Congratulations. And if you could come up here and the clerk will administer the oath.
[Zac Bears]: All right, that's out of the way. 26-003, appointment of a City Messenger for 2026 and 2027. As folks know, the role of City Messenger has been vacant since the passing of Larry Lepore, who served in the role for decades and was just a wonderful person who we miss every meeting and every day. Something that was in discussion before the leave and following separation, leaving the city, resignation, stepping down of Clerk Hurtubise was to kind of bring that role into the future and that looking like someone to essentially assist with our work on the city council in a different way than had been done in the past. was helping often with the agendas on Fridays, bringing them in paper copies to our homes, something that my mom, when I was living there, really enjoyed. And just having a wonderful conversation with Larry every day. But I think over the past year or so, we've gotten pretty used to digital delivery. And maybe that isn't the role that that will take anymore. But there are so many other things that this council needs help and support with in terms of liaising within the building and in terms of you know, helping us with correspondence and all of the things, as folks know, the City Council has only two appointments in this whole city, and we only supervise two employees, and that's our City Clerk and our City Messenger. And right now, both of those positions are vacant, so you can imagine what that looks like for each of us, and to be frank, especially for me and for Assistant Clerk Alicio here, soon to be, I believe, pending a vote, formerly our acting clerk. Adam left, well, and maybe even been the acting clerk since January 1st, according to the law. So we're affirming that. But being down those positions has definitely been tough. And I think what would be really, obviously we don't have someone to appoint right now, and we still need to get to the bottom of exactly what that position will look like. So with Vice President Lazzaro and maybe with someone else here, I think it would be really great to also start getting finalized on being able to bring on a new city messenger for our new term. So I would really appreciate that. And I think something we maybe could do right now for a few minutes if folks wanted to is just share some thoughts or volunteer to assist the vice president. Thoughts on what the position might look like or who might be helping our vice president with that. So I'll turn the floor over and then we'll have to table this for the time being. But I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Do we have any other thoughts on that at this time? Seeing none, is there a motion? Councilor Tseng? On the motion to table by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 24004, resolution to adopt the standing committee rules from the prior year. Be it resolved that the standing committee rules be adopted as the standing rules of the city council insofar as they're applicable. This just means that the rules we had on December 31st are the rules we have now. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: And did you want to say? Okay, great. I motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 26005, resolution to transfer all papers and committee from 2025 to 2026. Be it resolved that the city council transfer all papers and committee or on the table, this should say from the 2025 council to the 2026 council. Is there a motion to amend? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to amend and approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Council Vice President Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Records. The records of the meeting of December 16th, 2025 were passed to Vice President Lazzaro. Vice President Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to approve, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Reports of committees, 22231, offered by Matt Leming, City Councilor, Planning and Permitting Committee, December 16th, 2025 report. Councilor Leming is the, well, was the Vice Chair of the Planning and Permitting Committee last term. Its Chair, Councilor Collins, is no longer on the Council, so I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 26011 by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? The motion passes. 26011, resolution to conduct comprehensive review of ambulance EMS contract negotiation and transition. Whereas the city of Bedford has entered into a new ambulance service contract representing a significant change in public safety service delivery. And whereas questions have been raised regarding the negotiation process, financial management, in terms of service levels and cost implications of this transition. And whereas the City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently and public safety standards are maintained. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a committee of the whole meeting to conduct a comprehensive review of the ambulance service contract negotiation process and transition. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion, and we'll get to discussion in a second, but on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Tseng. We will first hear from the rest of members of the council if they'd like to speak on this. I'll say something quickly, and then we will hear from members of the public. And just a reminder to members of the public, you can speak either here in person or on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes. But first, we're gonna go to members of the council. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other members of the council want to speak to this paper at this time? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing no further councilors want to speak to this at this time, I'll just be brief about my viewpoint on this. I think when we talk about our ambulance contract, we're talking about residents wanting to trust that if they get sick or if they get hurt, there will be an EMT and an ambulance at their door or at the scene of a collision or at the scene of an incident quickly so that they can get the help that they need. It's one of the things that is one of the most essential functions of government, right? Making sure that if something goes wrong, there's someone there to keep folks safe. And I think when it comes to this contract, When you've been working with a group, a company for over 20 years, when there's been relationships built between those EMS folks and your police and your fire department, I would ask, and I would wanna know, and those are the questions that I'm asking, why change and why and how will residents be safer if we change? And that isn't clear to me. You know, I also have had a chance to speak with the mayor and our fire chief and our police chief, with Councilor Scarpelli, with some folks from Armstrong. And, you know, it's not clear to me. I've heard a couple of stories of things that happened that I don't like. I raised those with Armstrong. They said we didn't like that either. We made a mistake. And I just ask, you know, I think the answers that I'm hoping to find are, Why does the change make our city safer? And if we can get answers to that question and, you know, the experts believe that a change is going to make people safer and the mayor's, and that's the mayor's decision, well then that's the mayor's decision. But I just think that this council and the residents deserve clear answers to that question and I don't have them yet. So I want to hear from everybody. I want to understand. how and why this change is going to make our city safer. And I think if there were things outside of that scope, outside of the scope of making us safer that were a factor here, I want to understand why we couldn't get to yes on those questions that were outside of that core public safety role in this contract. So that's just where I'm coming from on this. I appreciate Councilor Scarpelli, my colleagues and their thoughts on this. And I will, pending an approval of this motion, work to schedule a committee of the whole with our chiefs, with the mayor's office, see if we can, if an executive session exemption around contracts would apply here considering that a contract signed. And my goal is to have that meeting next Tuesday before the changeover in a couple of weeks. So, Councilor Scarpell, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, sure. Thank you. We'll happily invite, you know, our current provider and the new provider if they'd like to attend as well, if that's great. So with that, if there's no other comments from members of the council, we'll open it up to members of the public either in person or on Zoom. You can line up behind the podium or raise your hand on Zoom and you'll have three minutes. Is there anyone who'd like to speak on this at this time? Great. Give me one second. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. For some reason, I can't set the timer the way I usually do. So I will keep time on my phone.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Floor is yours and you have three minutes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Could we have a copy of the letter just for the record, please? Oh, you left one? Great. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this issue? Great. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. That was a bit longer than three minutes. If we can try to stick to it, I'd appreciate it. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just before we hear from the Chief, I think for me, the fundamental question is, at least from my perspective, Why does this new contract make the city safer than the contract we had before. Like that's the question that I want to understand better. And to your point Madam Chief of Staff something that you know I know the mayor has written an email you just said was you know we don't want to go down the rabbit hole we don't want to bring up the issues. I think, you know, I spoke with Rich Raymond and he said, whatever the issues are, let's put them on the table. And I think like that honesty, let's just put it out there. I want to understand why we're making the decision we're making. And if that means putting out things that feel difficult to say, I think that's okay. That honesty I think is really important. That helps to me, that honesty will help me understand the answer to that question of why this decision makes the city safer. So that's just my perspective. I'll turn it over to Chief Evans and, you know, we can talk about the honest truth as everyone sees it and also just want to note we have a chance next week and this is a pitch for our committee structure that we've been working on for two years. You know, these meetings have 5, 10, 15 things on them. Next week we can have a meeting just about this, go into the details. So if, you know, we'll have everybody back, we can answer some of the more detailed questions but the floor is yours, Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: I want to be clear. I wasn't saying the city is less safe. I, you know, I want to understand how we're even safer with the new choice. That's all I'm saying.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chief. Madam Chief of Staff, and then I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli to meet him and I'm Chief of Staff, but I just still don't understand why. And I don't think anyone's questioning the competence of Chief Buckley or Chief Evans to implement this transition. I think, I'll speak for myself, I just wanna understand why we're doing a transition. You know, why, why is this contract, better than the contract we had. Why is this provider better than the provider we had before. And you know that's the piece I don't understand. I don't think we have time to answer every question tonight because we have a lot of other stuff we have to do tonight. I think a decision of this magnitude deserves. dedicated focus and time at another meeting. I understand that that creates a burden of time where people have to come back and be in this chamber and work through it. And I do have just, I think, something, kind of a question here. My understanding, and, you know, there's kind of been back and forth about this in the various discussions. on the process itself, right? You know, you talked about the process to do a contract. In this case, this was not a 30B procurement, right? Like we didn't solicit bids because the city doesn't pay the service provider, right? If you could just go quickly into that part of the process, I think that might be helpful for people to understand too because my understanding is it's not the traditional, it's not because there's no payment by the city, the city's not paying anybody. It's not the 30B bid process. It's just the mayor's decision of what she believes to be in the best interest of the city. So if you could just clarify that, because I've seen a bunch of people saying, this wasn't done right. And at least we can maybe get that out of the way tonight, and then we can talk about the why.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I appreciate that. And the word analyze you know that's I think for me what I just want to see the analysis you know what was the analysis of and how did the city team analyze the options and determine this to be the best option. I agree with you. It's an open it opens a door. It seems to me that all parties are certainly you know I heard from the mayor in communication you know. We don't want to put Armstrong out. We don't want that, you know, we don't, you know, we don't want to air anything that might hurt them. I heard from Armstrong. Let's just put it out there. So I think that piece of it, you know, just putting those facts out there is fine. I do think we don't have time for all of it tonight to understand the analysis over six months of a complicated decision. So I appreciate that. I understand, you know, having another meeting does add some additional work to the process. Personally, I believe that's worth the time. That's my two cents. I'll probably try to not say anything for the rest of this resolution. Councilor Scarpelli, I know you had your, you had a request to speak, so Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Chief Buckley. Medford Police, Chief Buckley.
[Zac Bears]: Or that it's the same level of safety. Maintain and improve, maintain or improve.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't call you a liar, sir.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a lie. I understand that. I think you've been in this room several times when people have called me a liar, or people have called George a liar, or people have called the chief of staff, or Chief Evans, or the mayor. Comes with the territory, and it sucks. I'm not going to say it. It doesn't feel good.
[Zac Bears]: No, I know. But I'm just, I know.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that, I just want to be clear about the three minutes. That applies to members of the public. Councilor Scarpelli. One second, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to turn on your microphone. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, and chief, just, uh, you know, I appreciate what you said. right here, right now, because it was the honest, your perspective of the truth, right? What you said was, this is what I experienced in this negotiation, and it was straight up. It was, I think we've had issues with Armstrong. I think we're getting more from Cataldo. My 30-plus years of experience as a public safety official, I think this is a better deal for the city. And that's your position on this, and you're sticking to it. And I think that's very different from, well, we don't want to air the dirty laundry, right? I think what you said is a clear, concise viewpoint, and you're saying, trust me, I'm the chief of police, I've been doing this a long time, and this is what's happened as I've been the chief of police. And I just think that that engenders a lot more trust in the public than we think this is the right call, we don't want to talk about the details because we don't want anybody to get hurt. And that's just where I'm coming from here, right? Something that's really frustrated me as I've done research over the last couple weeks is that the state does not put out clear data around some of these things, around response times, around some of the incidents. You know, to me these have been raised as a couple of troubling, but two troubling stories of these long response times. And I would wanna ask, do these two troubling stories constitute a consistent and persistent pattern, or are they aberrations? You know, what is the average response time here in Medford? You know, what does the new contract say about what Cataldo says they'll do as a response time? Is that higher or lower than what Armstrong said, right? And it's not about not trusting your, you. To me, it's just, I wanna see the numbers. I wanna see the numbers about that prove your case, that are backing your argument. That's where I'm coming from on this. So I appreciate that you've been really clear about what you said, you know, your position on it, but I haven't seen the numbers, right? That's the piece of it that's missing for me. And this is a really important, It's a really important thing. You acknowledge it. Everyone here acknowledges it. The last thing we want to do is make people worried that they're less safe. And you did the analysis. The Chief of Staff mentioned that there was an analysis. And I just want to talk about that analysis openly and honestly and let it land where it may. You know, Armstrong has said, we want it all out on the table. And I just think, and you said, let's just be honest, let's be clear. And I think residents just want to hear the honest truth. And I just personally, the thing that's been frustrating for me throughout this conversation on my end has been, you know, well, we just don't want to, we don't want to put the stuff out there. We don't want anybody to get hurt. It's like, well, yeah, nobody wants anybody to get hurt. Nobody wants EMS to be an issue. Let's just put all the information out there. If you guys believe you, you guys are the chiefs of fire and police, the mayor negotiates the contracts, But a lot of people have contacted us and said, why is this happening? And we just want those answers. So I hope that we can kind of have the conversation on those terms as we move ahead. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I mean, I appreciate, like.
[Zac Bears]: And I think putting that all out on the table too, right, maybe that's some of the things we don't want to talk about because people might get hurt thing. Let's just say it. Let's just say what's happening. That's all I'm saying here. We don't have to say it right now. I would like to have another meeting about this because we have a lot of other things to do tonight and we have a lot of people who want to speak. But you know to me it's I just think let's say what's happened. How we got here. How did this start. What was the issue. And and we'll just have that out there. That's the piece that I didn't. I've had frustration with was that let's not talk about it because people might get hurt.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We'll continue with public participation. We're going to go back to public participation. We'll stay at the podium. I'm not seeing any hands raised on Zoom. If you could give us your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I appreciate your service to the Senate. Thank you. I appreciate it. Guys, going forward from here, I'm just going to chime in at about three minutes and give you a chance to wrap up. I just want to let everybody know. Thank you. Floor is yours. If you could give us your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Still no hands on Zoom, so we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Still no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Still no hands on Zoom, so we will let NBC 10 take their microphone, and then we will stay at the podium. Sorry, Nick.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. All right. Not seeing hands on Zoom. I think that concludes public comment for the night. We have a motion to refer this paper to committee the whole meeting next Tuesday and I will recognize Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I actually did, was reminded that we did receive one email and they requested They wanted to be here in person and requested that we read it into the record, so I will read it now. Dear Councilor, I'm writing as a resident of Medford to express, for what it's worth, my displeasure in the bidding process that resulted in the selection of Cataldo Ambulance as the provider for Medford's 911 Emergency Medical Services, EMS. While I understand that state procurement law factors in the selection of provider, the fact remains that Armstrong Ambulance has dutifully served this community for over 25 years, providing excellent care and regularly meeting and exceeding national response time metrics. I myself am a paramedic and firefighter who began my career with Armstrong Ambulance 10 years ago. I served as both an EMT and paramedic in Medford for five of those years. And after working in this great city, I decided to make it my home, first by renting an apartment and subsequently purchasing my first home. I know many former co-workers from Armstrong feel similarly about this community and have decided to make it their own as I have. In that time, I've worked as a first responder. I have worked for both Armstrong and Cataldo. In the short time I worked for Cataldo, my impression of their service was one that did not prioritize meeting response requirements. In contrast, Armstrong has always firmly held to the requirements to backfill utilized trucks in Medford, limiting the time the city goes without a unit significantly. Indeed, the fact that Armstrong Ambulance is the largest and, to my knowledge, only union ambulance service in the State of Massachusetts helps to guarantee this. Contractually mandated minimum staffing levels guarantee that ambulances will be available when they are needed in a timely and efficient manner. In contrast, with no such provisions from Cataldo, it is not only feasible but likely that the closest available ambulance may be coming from many towns away, wasting crucial time. While I unfortunately will not be able to attend tonight's city council meeting due to a prior engagement, I wish to voice my displeasure in the strongest terms of the handling of this contract. I understand that procurement law plays a large part in the handling of municipal contracts, but the utter lack of transparency from a mayor who already has a clear record of retaliation, both against unions and first responders, is enough to cement the appearance of foul play in negotiations. From the perspective of a citizen, it appears that the mayor is playing games with essential services which save the lives of the people of Medford. In summation, whereas before January 19th, I never had the concern that an ambulance would be available to save the life of my loved ones and neighbors when, God forbid, they needed it most, I will no longer have that certainty moving forward. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that the end result will be an entirely preventable loss of lives that will rest squarely on the shoulders of the mayor. Sincerely, James Mello, Wauson Street. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli. to refer to a committee of the whole next Tuesday where we will invite all of the parties, the mayor's team, our police and fire chiefs, our 9-1-1 dispatch head, Armstrong Ambulance and Cataldo are all welcome to attend, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. All right. Regular order business, petitions, presentations and similar papers. 26006, petition for a common victor's license, Wunder HDR Holdings. This is to certify that a common victor's license is hereby granted to Wunder HDR Holdings, LLC, Massachusetts, DBA Wunder, location 55 Station Landing, Medford, Massachusetts. Hours of operation, Monday through Sunday, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. Well, it looks like Wednesday is 10.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Do we have a representative either in person or on Zoom from Wonder HDR Holdings? And we do. I'm going to turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli. He's the chair of our Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting, and Signs, and then we'll turn it over to you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. One second. Just your microphone. And I'm only I'm only going to mess with you a little bit here. You said Samuel Marcus and it's Marcus Samuelson and he's one of my favorite. Oh yeah. Sorry. I'm excited. Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any questions for members of the council about this kind of exercise. Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Sometimes in this room you wait two hours for five minutes. Yeah, sorry about that.
[Zac Bears]: I see the faces of others who are waiting even longer. All right. Petition for common victor's license, Colwyn Management, DBA Medford Hyatt Place. This is to certify common victor's license as hereby granted to Colwyn Management, Inc., DBA Medford Hyatt Place, 116 Riverside Ave. Hours of operation, 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., 7 days a week. And everything looks to be in order. We do have a representative, Councilor Scarpelli. Do you want me to recognize them first? I see Kevin Butler. Kevin, I'm gonna unmute you. If you could just provide us with your name and address and let us know a bit about this license.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further questions by members of the council? Councilor Millane, you're looking at me. No question from Councilor Millane yet?
[Zac Bears]: We're waiting with bated breath for your first question. All right. On the motion, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. 2-6-0-0-8, whereas City Clerk Adam Alherdeby officially stepped down from his office on December 31st, 2025. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we confirm that Assistant City Clerk Richard Alicio, Jr. is serving as the acting City Clerk pursuant to state law, city charter, and city ordinances until such time that the City Council votes to appoint a permanent City Clerk. Pretty self-explanatory, Adam had been on leave and his His last day was December 31st. In the past few months, Rich has been serving in the duties of the city clerk but now that office is vacant and for, as you may have noticed on the previous paper, Adam's name was still on the convictioner's license. Now we need someone's name to go on everything and the seal. The city clerk is an important role under state law and now that it is officially vacant, Rich is the acting clerk and we need to confirm that. So that is where we are at and I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So we have an amendment to add that the acting clerk will be paid the same amount as the ordinances say that the city clerk should be paid? Correct, please.
[Zac Bears]: And that amendment is seconded by Councilor Callahan. Do we have any further discussion on that amendment? Seeing none, on the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? By seconded by Councilor Callahan. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Everything affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. And you sent me some changes on this one didn't you Matt. Yeah, I see it. I'll read it from the email, but we have 26009 resolution to support SMFA professors at Tufts pursuing a fair contract sponsored by Councilor Leming and President Bears. Whereas the city of Medford recognizes the vital role that artists and educators play in enriching civic life and affirms the right of all workers to collectively bargain and be treated with dignity and respect. And whereas the professors of the practice at Tufts University School of Museum of Fine Arts are dedicated full-time professors in practicing artists whose instruction, mentorship and creative work are the backbone of the SMFA's academic excellence, whereas SFMA professors of the practice are currently engaged in contract negotiations seeking a fair agreement that addresses issues including salaries that keep pace with the cost of living, equitable promotion, and review practices, manageable workloads, and basic institutional support, and whereas faculty have been reporting that bargaining has not been going well and Tufts has attempted to silence local union members while failing to meaningfully address their concerns. And whereas student enrollment at SMFA has tripled in recent years, the number of full-time professors of the practice has dropped from 40 to 27, with the university refusing to fill vacancies overburdening current faculty. Whereas current compensation is unsustainable for faculty who have to cover added costs such as studio space essential for them to perform their job, forcing 11 faculty members to live out of state, professors of the practice are requesting a 3% cost of living increase for three years and 3.25% for two years after that. But Tufts has offered only 2.75%, alongside salary minimums that fall well below those of peer institutions. And whereas BIPOC and international faculty face additional barriers, including inequitable treatment compared to colleagues on the main campus, and delayed or inconsistent visa support that has left international faculty in precarious legal and employment situations. And whereas at a time when institutions of higher education, international students and faculty in the arts are under threat nationwide, Tufts University's failure to adequately support its SFMA faculty jeopardizes not only their livelihoods but also the long-term health and reputation of the university and its contributions to the city of Medford. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council stands in solidarity with the SFMA, SMFA, professors of the practice at Tufts University in the pursuit of a fair contract, supports the rights of all workers to organize without fear and retribution, Fear of retribution and urges Tufts to bargain in good faith by addressing faculty concerns regarding salary, equity, and institutional support and be it further resolved that the council recognizes SMFA faculty as essential contributors to the cultural and educational vitality of the city of Medford and calls on Tufts University to uphold its stated values of equity, inclusion, and academic excellence by investing in its faculty accordingly. And Councilor Leming, I hope that I just gave your speech for you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. You want to speak on this? Great. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, Simon. All right. On the motion of Councilman Leming, seconded by. Councilor Callahan, sorry. I have some sort of blindness around this. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 26010, resolution to hold the public forum and draft ordinance regarding city services on private ways, whereas the city administration is offered by Councilor Scarpelli, whereas the city administration has implemented a policy of service denial to residents of Medford that reside on private ways. Whereas the city administration's policy forces the financial responsibilities of infrastructure repair upon residents in private ways, creating an additional financial burden on residents. And whereas the city administration has denied these residents basic repairs and maintenance to neighborhood streets, sidewalks, trees, creating safety, quality of life, and equity issues. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the city council address the disparity in services provided to residents in private ways in a public forum with the necessary department heads and policy makers. And be it further resolved that the city council draft an equity of services ordinances that prohibits The refusal of basic city services to residents in private ways. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I really enjoy watching the caption service try to say my name. It never gets it right. Yeah. Fair enough. I just want to note one thing before I go to, uh-oh. Oh, no. I thought there was a Liz in there for a second, but still no Liz. We have Councilors Callahan, Leming, and then Lazzaro, and then Callahan. But I just wanted to note as well. that we have a parking on private ways resource on the city website. And then Councilor Leming, which I'm guessing he might talk about, did kind of an overview last year. We had some great meetings in 2022 and 2023 around private ways. And I think it might behoove us to coordinate with the communications team around just a basic FAQ type thing, like Councilor Scarpelli is talking about, FAQ checklist. The information's out there, some of it's in meeting videos, some of it's on the parking department, and I think it's just, you know, what's the go-to information around private ways so that when residents have questions, they understand the law, as you noted, so.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, yeah. And I just wanted to, maybe we could develop that resource and then have the forum on it. So, just my two cents because I, you know, Private Ways are back again and they never go away because we have a lot of Private Ways here in Medford. And that causes us some trouble. So I'll go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Vice President Lazzaro, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't wanna do like a Tim chant. Tim, Tim. If you say Tim three times, he appears in the mirror talking about private ways.
[Zac Bears]: So. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, thanks Tim. All right, gonna go to everybody, great. Vice President Lazzaro first.
[Zac Bears]: I think Tim just confirmed that you're fine.
[Zac Bears]: It will be plowed, but it may disappear entirely.
[Zac Bears]: Private ways are plowed. Great. End of story. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Oh. All right, everybody. Email Tim, not me. Email Tim, not me. All right. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Could we friendly amend the friendly amendment to say that we will work with the city staff and communications department to draft? Great.
[Zac Bears]: And if you could email that and counsel.
[Zac Bears]: Well, Rich will write it down maybe, or?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Ah, perfect. You will write it down and give it to Rich.
[Zac Bears]: And Matt, your amendment, could you do that same thing or email it?
[Zac Bears]: What if we did four different ways and we are not sure if we end up getting it? All right. Thanks, Anna. So we have a friendly amendment from Councilor Leming, we have a friendly amendment from Councilor Callahan, and we're going to go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further discussion by members of the council on Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Would, under an eminent domain situation, would the city have to compensate the property owners?
[Zac Bears]: To take the way, and we'd be taking it in a non We'd then also have to pay to fix, to improve it.
[Zac Bears]: Looks like we have two members of the public, maybe three, who'd like to speak on this issue. So we'll go first to the podium and then we'll go to Zoom. Name and address for the record please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Simon. We have Jen Sullivan on Zoom, then we'll come back to the chamber. Jen, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Jen. I appreciate it. Oh, sorry. I asked you to unmute, but don't do that. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Test on. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome, thank you. You and me, Tim, you and me. Yeah, I really want to talk about private ways all the time. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Leming and Councilor Callaghan seconded by Councilor Mullane. Wow. There we go. Finally got a chance to say it. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. All right, communications from the mayor. 26-012. Proposed, submitted by Mayor Brianne O'Kern. Proposed wage adjustment for DPW superintendents, building department inspectors, recreation union. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, respectfully request and recommend City Council approve the following amendments for revised ordinances, Chapter 66, Article 2, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Medford. In Article 2 entitled reserve the city's classification compensation plan, formally included as Article 2, Section 66-31 to 66-40, amend the figures as they presently appear next to the following title by adjusting each to reflect the following percentage wage increase. This is effective July 1, 22. Base salary increased 2.5 percent. July 1, 2023, base salary increased 2.5 percent. July 1, 2024, base salary increased 3 percent. July 1, 2025, base salary increased 2.5 percent. July 1, 2026, base salary increased 2.5 percent. July 1, 2027, base salary increased 2.5 percent. HR Director Lisa Crowley will be able to answer any questions. And I'm pretty sure this probably just says on the back, thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Brianne Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have, so this is for our union contract for our DPW superintendents, building department inspectors, and recreation union. And I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to waive the three readings and approve to be ordained, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative down the negative, the motion passes. 26013 submitted by Mayor Brannon-McCurran, capital stabilization fund and water and sewer capital stabilization appropriation requests, DPW vehicle and water main replacements. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve appropriations from the capital stabilization fund in the amount of $37,223.00 for a hybrid SUV DPW admin vehicle. The balance of the Capital Stabilization Fund before this vote is $10,568,569. Two, Water and Sewer Capital Stabilization Fund in the amount of $325,000.00 to supplement design and or construction funding for water remain placement projects including, but not limited to, Capon Street, Grove Street, Bustle Road, Century Street, Extension, Playstead Road, Woods Road, Roberts Road, Kilgore Avenue, Monument Street, and Sharon Street. The balance of the water and sewer capital stabilization fund before this vote is $1,765,000. DPW Commissioner Tim McGivern and City Engineer Owen Wartella will be available to answer questions. Respectfully submitted, Brianna Leocurin, Mayor. Tim and Owen, tell us what it's about.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions about the DPW vehicle? Are you happy with this, Owen? Owen, you good with this? I'm happy with it. Great. Fantastic. I really need that truck back. Just making sure. You want to talk about the design and or construction water main project?
[Zac Bears]: I was hoping. Nope. Not from Liz today. You get Anna though. All right.
[Zac Bears]: It's funny because for some reason Shane put Councilor Maloney into the system as Liz with two Z's. So I just see, I just see, I see number four Liz has come up to ask a question. So Councilor Malauulu.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly. We have an obligation to match the pothole, divot for divot.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. on the motion to approve. Oh, we got one question. We got a question here on Zoom. Well, any more questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Fantastic. Seeing no more questions from the council, we'll go to public participation either in person or on Zoom. You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing no one in person, I will go to Sue Edelman. Sue, name it on Zoom. Sue, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Sue, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sue. And I'm going to go to our engineer.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Any more participation on this paper. Seeing none on the motion of. Someone to approve, anyone? I so move. Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thank you. Public participation, we have Robin Dooling, 74 Hume Ave, Medford. Would like to speak about the permit parking in the GLX zone. The fee for my family is ridiculous. Permit parking was forced on us. Plenty of people can park freely in front of their homes, not opposed to permit but opposed to paying.
[Zac Bears]: Robin, how are you? Name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Robin.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I wish that everyone who spoke was as concise and clear with their points as you were. You know, we've had a few five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Well, the main thing that I think this body can offer you is at least a place to air the grievance. Yeah. We don't set the parking policy.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so the council doesn't set the parking policy for the city.
[Zac Bears]: The traffic commission does. With the GLX zone parking, it's a little bit different. It used to be street by street, and so folks would petition for their street. The GLX, the parking traffic commission decided to move to this zone, which is probably why, it was definitely why you guys had that shift where you didn't have permit before, but now you do. You can file a petition with the traffic commission.
[Zac Bears]: And I can definitely understand how frustrating that is.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. And that was the shift with that with the zone versus the street by street. And so that was that that was the traffic commission's approach to the GLX. Now that would be the next step. I do have a question for you. Yeah. Which is you know when the train came in. or since the permit parking, have you seen like a lot more people trying to park on your street or change? No. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I'm guessing it also probably doesn't, you're not using that GLX pass other places in the zone. No.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate you coming to us. I understand your frustration.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Again, I think they're probably going to say we've moved to this zone, and it's a zone, and that's what it's going to be. But, you know, it's always possible to at least go to them and have them hear you out, even maybe for your block of Huma if there's no parking issue. You know, I can't say whether or not they'll do anything, but you can always file a petition with them. And Councilor Scarpelli wants to say something as well. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: One other thing I heard you mention is, you know, you've kind of felt like you have to pay, but there are other parts of the city that don't have to pay. Yeah, there are.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I guess.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's a completely valid point. And I, you know, it's not the way I like to think about it, but I just want to kind of think it out, think out that point. If, I think part of why this is feeling different is, you know, it's been the street by street for a long time, and that's kind of given a lot of local, very hyper local kind of control over the permit parking situation to the people on the street, right? And this is, represents kind of a shift into more of a zone model. But you see in a lot of other cities that the whole, you know, when they do that, they do the whole city. There's a zone for the whole, you know, each city, part of the city has a zone. So everybody's being, paying something. Would that, would you feel different if everybody in the city had to pay?
[Zac Bears]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: And you absolutely wouldn't be. I just wanted to kind of do the thought experiment.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you and we appreciate you coming down and waiting until 10 to have that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay. Feel free to email me with a technical issue or about this or anything you want.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thanks, Robin. All right, now we're just in general public participation. So anything you want for three minutes, Simon?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think I got most of them down. Neighborhood board meetings, the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee is going to start meeting on that in the next few weeks to start planning those out. I think we're looking at at least I don't want to over promise certainly at least one a year maybe two a year in each ward slash neighborhood ordinances updates. Vice President Lazzaro and acting clerk Alicio that's those are the folks for that one. We're hoping to really start getting getting that. It's been an ongoing issue. There was a backlog in the clerk's office around. ordinances and also some long wait times with KP Law on some of the ordinances getting back from them. And so Muni Code hasn't been updated in a while. I know that was something that was a goal for June and July and Rich and I had been working on that with our former clerk and then he went on leave. So sorry about that. Route 60 Rotary. I'm guessing you mean the shoveling of the sidewalks and the underpass, right?
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it's not a big deal. Yeah, I mean, I think if you could, if you have photos and maybe even Google Maps with the areas specifically circled, then we could probably work with code enforcement to see who the abutters are, and if the abutters are the city, then essentially it's like the way that it works. So it sounds to me like MassDOT is clearing the parts that it owns.
[Zac Bears]: OK, so these are MassDOT properties approaching the underpass that are not getting cleared.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan, Well, this is just the rotary. Vice President Lazar. You know, I liked Kit more as my vice president. I called her Councilor Collins all the time. She never gave me any crap for it. Oh, boy. Meeting materials for committees, the program that we use is available to every board and commission in the city. We just need to get them trained on it, and then they would all be in one place. So I would love if they were using our service. OK. Yeah, but that is a mayor administration question.
[Zac Bears]: And Rich has one thing for you too, Simon. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. Thank you. All right. Potentially last but not least, unless anyone else on the meeting wants to raise their hand on Zoom, we have Gaston Fiori. Name and address and record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we do have one on Zoom, so one raised hand. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Happy New Year.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn, seconded by Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, it's... You want to be Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins? I'll get Vice President Lazzaro 50% of the time. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Lazzaro, to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, give me a heads up when we're ready to go.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and we're good on the Medford Community Media side as well?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. All right, then.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think they probably don't need the booth for the Zoom meeting, I think, if I remember correctly. So we should be all right.
[Zac Bears]: All right, well, last meeting of the year. Hi, everybody. Thank you for being here. We'll get going right now. Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, December 18th, 2024. It's a call to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: present, five present, two absent, the meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. on December 18th, 2024 via Zoom only. The action and discussion item for this meeting is paper 24-006, which is a review of the 2024-2025 Council Governing Agenda. So we'll take that up. At our first regular meeting, January 9th, 2024, We resolved that Councilors would submit items to create a governing agenda document based on a draft template. We then met on January 24th, 2024 to review the governing agenda and refer it out to each of the committees. And we also made a motion to have reviews in June and December and to review the governing agenda regularly. And pursuant to those motions, we held the committee of the whole, I believe in June, and now we're having one in December to review progress to date, to suggest updates to the document, and to send a link to resident services and public engagement committee to be included in the January newsletter, the updated document. I wanna thank Vice President Collins for working on the updated document with me. Folks can find it at a link that I'll post in the chat. It's also available on the city website, but it is also on the council portal. And this is as of Monday when the agenda went out. So again, thank you, Vice President Collins for your work on this with me. And I think we can either start with any comments or questions from councillors, and then we can quickly go through and review highlights from each committee so far this year and what's coming up for the next year. With that, I'm happy to go to Vice President Collins if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I'll recognize Councilor Callahan in just a moment. And just wanted to note, you know, throughout this project, this meeting, if folks have amendments that they'd like to make or edits, or if they want to submit edits subsequent to the meeting, we can update the document a little further before it goes out with the newsletter in January. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I wasn't going to take credit, and I really do feel like it's a team effort, but, you know, working with my colleagues over the past few years and seeing what I thought and then working with everyone in this council to implement some changes around this document, creating a committee structure that really focused on being functional and effective and aligning with how the city works was a major priority at the beginning of the term. And I think it's gone well. I am going to note some unexpected things that we've learned so far and just ways to think about this going forward. But overall, I'm really just proud of this council and the work that we've done. putting it out there. I totally agree with you, Councilor Callahan. Having this document and being able to point to a single document, yeah, it's a little long and sometimes a little wordy and maybe a little wonky, but to say here's what we're doing and it's actually comprehensive is groundbreaking in my opinion. All right, well, we can start I just want to, I'll do a quick screen share and if folks, you know, want me to do that when they're talking about their committees or any other point I'm happy to do it but just wanted to let people see kind of the form of this document. So, this is the front cover page with all our lovely names on it. City Seal, but there's this great table of contents and luckily our new portal even makes it linkable. You can click into each different section, starting with a helpful document section, and then it's broken down by each of our committees. Our Committee of the Whole, Administration and Finance Committee, our Education and Culture Committee, the Governance Committee, Planning and Permitting Committee, which has been particularly prolific, and as well as our Public Health and Community Safety Committee, Public Works and Facilities Committee, and the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. And within each of those sections, there is a kind of broken down in three ways, some major projects that the committee is working on, some ordinances that the committee is working on, and then some of the oversight and engagement work that committees do as part of their task. So I'll start with our helpful documents. This is just a great place to find just a few quick links to some of the major plans and things that we reference regularly in our meetings. are not just our committees and their members, but the city's ordinance, the code, as well as the major plan governing a lot of what we're doing around the city comprehensive plan, talking about zoning and built environment and what the vision for the community is over the next 30 years. Housing production plan, how we're trying to produce more housing so that people who live here can stay here and people who want to live here can move here. A climate action and adaptation plan to address the climate crisis, and our open space and recreation plan. And I'm hoping we can get some more documents linked in here in the future as well as they are developed. Our committee of the whole, which I chair, but as a committee of all seven councilors has had a lot of meetings, but mostly those are meetings to review papers from the mayor or to review things that have been reported out of another committee. order review kind of ad hoc resolutions that are coming up during the year. But we did have two projects in committee of the whole term started the tree preservation protection and replacement ordinances and our food truck ordinance. We have held meetings on those this year. Food truck ordinance we are hoping to incorporate some significant legal feedback. We definitely learned a lot about the laws around food trucks and our meeting on that this year. And the tree ordinance we met on in November and the tree ordinances, the public tree ordinance and the tree committee ordinance are awaiting some review by city staff as well as some Councilors before coming back to the council committee of the whole. And then the private tree ordinance is going to be reviewed by city staff and incorporated also into our or at least reviewed by our zoning consultant because that is mainly a zoning ordinance. So that is being, we're taking advantage of the resources that we have around zoning to review the private tree ordinance. And the goal is really to get this done early in 2025 so that we can get these ordinances on the books and update our public tree ordinance and get a workable private tree ordinance in place so that we can stop losing trees and hopefully start growing our tree canopy again. So that's Committee of the Whole, happy to, it's an easy one, happy to pause there and if anyone has any comments or anything they want to add on the Committee of the Whole before moving to the next committee. Seeing none, I will also take on the next committee, which is our Administration and Finance Committee. This hasn't met as much as I had initially thought and it's kind of one of those lessons learned. I think a lot of what this committee nominally is responsible for is our things that we've been doing in committee of the whole. There have certainly been a few meetings on more on the ordinance level. But, you know, we have our annual budget process every year that happens mostly in committee of the whole meetings. And we are now going to be in our second year of an annual budget process guided by our first ever budget ordinance, which is really exciting. As folks noted, there were some dates in the meeting schedules for the upcoming six months around the budget, including getting some of our budget recommendations in early March per the budget ordinance. And we did work on a major project around the Proposition 2.5 overrides. We had our first ever override process this year, and since Proposition 2.5 went into effect nearly 50 years ago, and the passage of Questions 7 and 8 is really significant for our public schools and our DPW. So that's going to be a part of our budget process for the first time this year. working, you know, we have we did appropriate the funds for the DPW sidewalk and street repair crew to bring that back in house. Certainly won't fix every street and sidewalk, but it's good to have a team in the DPW dedicated to this and the staffing restored for this function, which is really a basic essential function. And we have the certainly that we will hear from our Medford public schools, the school committee will be working on implementing their supplemental budget this year and then working on their budget process for fiscal 26. And, you know, our role in that is just to approve the allocation and they approve the expenses. But I know that it's going to be a really impactful year in our public schools because of the funds that are going to be available for them. So that's exciting around the budget. I talked again a lot about the revenue generation project and proposition two and a half. We were able to complete, you know, at least a piece of that project this year around the overrides. And, you know, I think revenue generation outside of proposition two and a half is always a focus of the council, especially when it comes to economic development, as well as just updating our city's ordinances. I really want to thank Councilor Leming for leading on linkage fees, hopeful that we'll be able to meet on updating the fee schedule for the city early this year. That was a big call as well from the council earlier this year, just so that we're not 30 years out of date on inflation, which we have been on way too many things in the city for a long time. I'll just move quickly through the rest. Another project that we talked about was the classification and compensation study implementation. We were hoping to get started on this many months ago, but we have not received any sort of document or really even any sort of update from the city administration on when we can expect to be updating the city's personnel ordinance and looking at this. So I'm going to be checking back in with the administration in the new year on that. And I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, our role is really to we have to update the personal ordinance. That's how the so that element of it around compensation and changes to the different classifications. in that ordinance, that would all have to come to us. So I think the next step is we need to see what those recommendations were and then discuss those changes. And I think it's a big project. I think we should take due diligence and time with it. But really, the next step is that we need to have the administration let us know if that study is completed, if there's a document, some sort of implementation recommendation from the Collins Center, and then look at that from there. So, we'll see.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely, yeah. I'll get in touch with them and let them know it's something we want to work on this year, this upcoming year. mentioned the linkage fee project. We have a home rule petition in at the State House to update the linkage fee ordinance and allow for regular updates to our linkage fees. And I believe also then we would look at an updated linkage fee ordinance. I don't know if Councilor Leming, you want to talk any more about that? You were really leading that project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Councilor Leming for that update. And the Home Rule petition did end up getting submitted Uh, this session so and I actually did have a little correspondence. I'm slightly hopeful it might end up in an end of year omnibus bill or a local, uh, home rule petitions package. Um, so Maybe we'll we'll have some good news on that before January 1st. We'll see Great Um We also worked on maximizing tax exemptions that are allowed by the state to maximize those. I really want to thank Councilor Leming on both the MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22G, as well as adopting provisions of the HERO Act. That is something we are always looking for to make sure that our residents have the most opportunities under state law for exemptions from the property tax. We have also completed an establishment of a General Stabilization Fund and a Capital Stabilization Fund and Water Sewer Stabilization Fund, which has already been making a difference this year, having access to reserve funds for emergencies and capital needs. Ordinances-wise, we passed our budget ordinance. So excited about that and excited to see it used again this year. We did discuss the commercial vacancy tax, and that is still in committee. Maybe it can come up again in the future. I will go over to Councilor Lemingston, since that was his proposal, if he wants to talk about it more.
[Zac Bears]: So this has really evolved and maybe we should update this, uh, going forward. Yeah. I'll keep that as a note. Mr. Clerk, if you could keep as a note, we want to update this section around the commercial vacancy tax.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing a nod, yes. Next item is the good landlord tax credit. We actually have reviewed this and found that the way that the state law was structured makes this a really actually unappealing credit to implement. So it's probably not something we're going to move forward with, at least the discussions that we have with the assessor, or that this would be of great benefit to essentially only the very, very large commercial property, well, residential property owners, but the companies that own large multi-unit buildings and would not really be of benefit for our two-family, three-family landlords. That was really frustrating to hear. Councilor Callahan, did you want to talk on that?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that we could reach out to the assessor's office and maybe try to get a written update for sure. Matt and I had a couple meetings, or Matt had some conversations, I had some conversations, and sure, we could pull together some information from those. share that with the rest of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'm just going to zoom through the rest of it. Oh, go ahead, Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I appreciate that. No action is being taken at this meeting. Um, this is just, uh, updating the document and kind of reviewing our progress on these different items. And, um, I think it would be good for all of our committees at some point this spring to maybe have a little bit of a. A clean up session at 1 of their meetings as well and, um. Either receiving place on file any papers that won't be moving forward or. Otherwise, refer things to new committees if it seems like they should be going there. For the rest of this, I'll just go quickly. We also, in the future, would like to look at a Community Benefits Agreement ordinance around having a Community Benefits Committee that negotiates with very large real estate projects and nonprofits around what the needs assessment for our neighborhoods is and figuring out how that would work in alignment with our zoning process and also with the Community Development Board. We have a look at a percent for art ordinance that was proposed many years ago, which would create a requirement that 1% of costs would be earmarked for public art projects for large developments. So that's something we could look at. We could also look at that probably in the context of our zoning project. President Morell and I proposed looking at paid family medical leave for our city employees. I think that's something I really want to talk about in our budget cycle this year to see if that's a possibility, as well as extended illness leave bank. And then beyond that, the committee has advocated for pilot legislation requiring large nonprofits like Tufts University to pay a fair share in property taxes, as well as our general review of the city's finances. We do receive monthly warrant articles and regular financial updates and, um. Reviewing the city ordinances as named here as needed. I'll go to Councilors are and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So the enabling, the city council is the authority to vote to implement the program. City council by majority vote can enter into the state's paid family medical leave program. It would initially, it would require the city to budget for that. So there'd be a budget impact, which a couple of years ago, Director Dickinson estimated within the $500,000 to $1 million per year range. may also have collective bargaining impacts. So those are some of the questions we'd wanna discuss with the administration if we were gonna move forward with that. But we can vote to enter.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think we'll see that in committee of the whole sometime in the first couple months of the year around the stabilization fund. And I think we may also expect an update to the capital improvement plan, which will be an even longer outlook as well.
[Zac Bears]: You got it. All right, I'm going to turn it over. Well, the next committee was education and culture committee. That's Councilor Scarpelli as the chair who's not present. I don't think this committee met this year. It had a couple One item looking to identify public internship opportunities for students that Councilor Tseng has been proposed and wanted to work on. And I will on this 1, I will recognize guest on for public participation. 3 minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So that, uh, there was a vote to revert that to, um, uh, essentially it was reverted back to the city for use for ARPA related purposes. Um, uh, the mayor, we would have to talk to the mayor about, uh, exactly specifically how it's going to be spent. All ARPA funds need to be encumbered by December 31st of this year per the federal law. The mayor did notify us that about 850,000 of that maybe a little bit more was utilized to purchase a new fire truck that was essentially the city of Lynn had purchased a fire truck. that was not able to fit in their fire stations but does fit in our fire stations and we were able to purchase that truck and that was a really big windfall because not necessarily from a money perspective but from a time perspective because right now it takes between 36 and 60 months to get a fire truck to the city and we're going to get a new vehicle engine. right away because it's already been delivered to Lynn. So I do know that is one item we received specifically that this funding was going towards, and the mayor said in a communication to us when we did the supplemental appropriation vote that those funds would go essentially towards capital priorities and other items in the capital plan so that they'd be expended before December 31st. But the mayor, I believe, is going to release a detailed final reporting on ARPA funding after the after December 31st.
[Zac Bears]: told us in public meetings and committed to, at least in conversation with me, they're gonna try to spend every last dollar that's available. And that's definitely the goal that I want to hold them to. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. You got it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and there was a communication or discussion, I believe, around the paper itself that there were projects in the pipeline that may have been asked for funds from the capital stabilization fund or another source that instead this ARPA money will be able to go towards, such as that fire engine, which it wasn't, you know, there are several fire apparatuses in the capital improvement plan along with, I think the mayor may have mentioned police cruisers and a couple of other items. There was a written document somewhere in a packet that we received. go to the governance committee. This is alphabetically convenient. Councilor Tseng is also not present, so I can handle that quickly, and then we can go to our last four committees here. But this committee focuses on basically rules, charter, elections. The two projects that really have been worked on or are being planned to be worked on are updates to our city charter. We did have some preliminary meetings beginning earlier this year. some prior to September and then starting in October and November. And we just received the draft proposal from the mayor. So we have that and we will be considering in the new year in January and February and maybe into March some amendments to that proposal. And then getting that to the mayor and getting the mayor to get that to the legislature so that the legislature can pass it. in time for it to be on the ballot in November of 2025. And if the voters were to approve it at that point, it would go into effect for the following election in 2027. So that's another huge, exciting project. I do want to thank the Starter Study Committee and the mayor and the Collins Center. I know there will be some changes, maybe significant changes that we choose to make. You know, we are the the first elected officials taking a look at this after the mayor and, you know, we, it requires a super majority vote of this body to approve and we are the legislative body of the city. So our voice is very important in this project. And I believe we will also, speaking with Councilor Hsuang, who's the chair of this committee, and I believe I'm his vice chair, we will be probably soliciting some feedback from our multi-member boards and commissions, as well as the school committee, maybe some other folks as well, just so that if they want to have a voice as part of this process, as the sitting school committee and boards and commissions, we'll be able to incorporate some of their recommendations and changes as well. All right, I'll turn it over to VP Collins, planning and permitting committee.
[Zac Bears]: 16, so only 16? Wow.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think it'd probably fall under the administration and finance committee, but also probably would end up mostly ending up being implemented in committee of the whole, would be my guess. My best thinking at the time, and maybe Mr. Clerk, if you could put in the report a note that we want to add the residential exemption in to this document, I think that's a really great flag, Anna. Thanks, Mr. Clerk. And I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's a great flag. Councilor Collins, you have a thought on that or?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think we could, you know, definitely for those resolutions where it just goes to a regular meeting and gets done. If folks want to see that included in here, either as an accomplishment, something that's been completed or something that's initiated a project that didn't go to committee, we could just, you know, get one-on-one email the two of us and we can figure out either if it should go into a committee and if that means we should refer it to committee or we can put it under committee of the whole or we could even create another section for regular meeting items. Council is all.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, great, thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it sounds like in a lot of cases, yes. I just wanted to note on these planning and permitting items, Councilor Callahan, I'd love to work with you. I've had some meetings with Quentin Zondervan and some other folks around benchmarking and disclosure and some other items. And I'd love to loop in with you. I know we're gonna have a conversation in the next couple of weeks. So that's something we could talk about, but I think some exciting things there. So just wanted to note that. And I actually, awesome. I apologize to my colleagues. I need to step out of this meeting. I really apologize. Councilor Collins, if you could take over from here, if that's all right. I just wanted to thank of my colleagues for a great year. I will watch the rest of this meeting for the last committees for the work they're doing. I know so much is getting done in all of them. And there's a lot more that folks are excited to do in the new year. So thank you, Councilors Lazzaro, Callahan and Leming. I apologize that I won't be here to hear the rest of that. just putting a link in the chat for you, Vice President Collins, and you can take a stone, but you're in charge. Thank you. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Test one, two.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole December 17 2024 is called the order. Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford city council committee of the whole at 6 30 PM in the city council chamber, second floor, Medford city hall, 85 George B has to drive Medford ma and via zoom. The action and discussion item today is two four five one one, a caucus to designate the 2025 council leadership. Are there any nominations for the office of the vice president of the city council for the year 2025? well, vice president-elect, Councilor Lazzaro. Oh, sorry, still getting used to that.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins has been nominated for vice president, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Are there any further nominations for vice president-elect of the City Council for the year 2025? Seeing none, nominations are closed. On the nomination of Vice President Collins as Vice President-Elect for the year 2025, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, to accept the nomination, I guess I should ask. Vice President Collins accepts the nomination.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, please, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I think that's the next one. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six present six in the affirmative one present vice president Collins is the president elect for vice president elect for 2025. Congratulations. Are there any nominations for the office? No, just wait a minute. Great. Do you want to take the chair for this one? Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, everyone. And just a reminder, we will have the formal vote at the beginning of our first regular meeting in January. And right now we are president and vice president elect for the year 2025. Any further comments or discussions by members of the council? Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by councilors saying seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes and this meeting is adjourned. We'll reconvene at 7pm for our regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: 24th regular meeting Medford City Council December 17 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Before we start, this is our last meeting of the year. And I do ask my colleagues for limited indulgence and welcome the crowd for being here as well. I just wanna thank my colleagues for an incredible 2024. It's been a busy year of nearly a hundred meetings of this body and committee and in regular session. And I don't think anyone can say that this council has not been outspoken and spoken its mind on a variety of topics. In January, I spoke about three leadership principles, collaboration, planning, and trust. This council has worked together collaboratively within our committees with the city administration, city staff, community organizations, businesses, educational institutions, and thousands of residents to implement and discuss a clear and transparent governing agenda created and published in February. Tomorrow night we're going to conduct our one year review of that plan and suggest updates for the year ahead and I encourage everyone in our city to join us. I firmly believe that this open and direct approach to governance is foundational to good governance and to trust, and I'm going to continue to lead with these principles in 2025. There's always disagreement, and we've had some tough meetings. I'm always open to meet with anyone, whether that's Councilors, residents, employees of the city and others to hear from them. And of course, this council will always hear from anyone who speaks at this podium under our rules. I'm excited for 2025. Earlier this week, released our January to June schedule. There are 60 meetings scheduled on topics including the budget, a new city charter, zoning and much more. And I really just want to implore and invite the community to join us in the process of building a better Medford together. So thank you for your indulgence. And with that, we'll move to the agenda. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-512 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council commend and congratulate Barbara Kerr for her 40 years of tireless and selfless service at the Medford Public Library. We thank her for her work with our residents and for providing a welcoming hub for our community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, and I just want to note certainly to thank Barbara, and I think Barbara would also want us to thank her staff, the trustees, the Library Foundation, which has been so instrumental in the construction of and outfitting of the new library, the friends of the Medford Public Library, and all of the folks who walk through those doors or use the online resources or take out a book or other material at the library has really become so much more than just a place to go and get a book, but it really provides essential community services to so many people in our community, especially our kids and our teens. So just thank you to Barbara and the whole library team. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, and we will invite Director Kerr for a citation in the new year. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve the records of the special meeting of November 26, 2024, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. The records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the records of the meeting of December 3rd, 2024, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees. Council Vice President Collins. One moment.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join the reports of committees by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: To join. I think we have to read them out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. 24-033 Planning and Permitting Committee, December 3rd, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of vice president. Well, we'll take a motion at the end. 24468 Governance Committee, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. 23-055, 24-073, 24-354, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. 24-502 offered by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. And finally, Vice President Collins, the December 11th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 24-033.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the joint papers? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the joint papers, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24494 for third reading 24510 and 24517. Mr. Clerk, please seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Shane, would you mind turning the captions on on the in-chamber TVs? Thank you. 24494, Riverside Plaza loan order approved for first reading November 19th, 2024. Advertised Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, eligible for third reading December 17th, 2024. Is there a motion to approve for third reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for third reading, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. Yes, it's in past packets. It's the Riverside Plaza loan order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, none of the negative. That is ordained for third reading. 24510. presented by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the below loan order. By way of some background, the Andrews and McGlynn Middle Schools are in need of extensive HVAC work, as well as at least repairs to the McGlynn School roof. The city has hired an owner's project manager and designer with the goal of conducting the majority of the construction work during the summer months to further the project and keep the timetable for construction In January, the city needs to pre-order equipment, continue to design with the designer and OPM and the pre-construction services of the construction manager to accomplish this, a fundering authorization of about $5 million is needed. In the future, after further designing cost estimates have been finalized, we will likely return for the rest of the cost to complete construction, which is expected to be about an additional $20 million. City of Medford loan order, school HVAC infrastructure and roof bonds, be it ordered that $5 million is appropriated for the purpose of replacing boilers and cooling systems with new condensing boilers and heat pumps, including associated automatic controls, structural and architectural work, electrical work and weatherization at the McGlynn School and Andrew School, and the acquisition and installation of solar panels for a new roof and a new roof or roof repairs at the McGlynn School, including the cost of planning, design, architectural and engineering services and all other costs incidental and related thereto. And that this appropriation to meet this appropriation the treasurer, with the approval of the mayor is authorized to borrow the set amount pursuant to chapter 44 section seven subsection one of the Massachusetts general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority, and to issue the bonds or notes of the city therefore. and further ordered that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth to qualify under chapter 44A of the general laws, any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order and to provide such information and execute such documents as officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We have Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing with us tonight to further discuss the project. do you have a presentation before we move to questions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just to confirm the school committee did discuss this last night and there was a vote of the school committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. With that, I will go to the council for questions and further discussion. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before I recognize Councilor Collins and Councilor Callahan, I do just want to note on the ARPA funding that has to be encumbered by December 31st. And we did receive a communication from the mayor at a large chunk of that 800,000 plus dollars that we were able to buy a fire engine from the city of Lynn. So there's a new fire engine coming through that money. So a large chunk of that money has been appropriated. It does have to be encumbered by the end of the year. I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Tom. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'll go to Vice President Collins. Oh, sorry, Mr. Cushing, then Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Cushing. I don't think anyone's excited for the 30 percent cost increases we're all about to see. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Council Vice President Collins has motioned to approve for first reading and to schedule a committee of the whole in early January prior to third reading for a more in-depth presentation. Is there a second on that motion? Second. Several. I'll go with Councilor Lazzaro and then I will go to Councilor Scarpelli for further discussion. Yeah, I'm just gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins as amended to request a committee of the whole in January, please wait, thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to request a committee of the whole and also amended by Councilor Tseng to request the slides be shared with the council by email and also that councilors can submit questions. Should they submit them to you Director Hunt and Assistant Superintendent Cushing directly? Great, thank you. Vice President Collins, do you have anything further? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I know you guys wanted to maybe respond or answer any further questions. I just wanted to note that this project has been on the radar. It was in a previous capital improvement plan, and it was one of the reasons for the question six vote, because it was a large project that came up. The proposed question six did not succeed, but it was why it was on the ballot.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions by members of the Council for Director Hunt, Dr. Cushing, or for Director Dickinson on Zoom? Seeing none, we'll go to open this up for any public comment. You can either show up at the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. This is only for this paper. If you have comment on this specific paper. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the materials are available in the school committee packet from last night. I'll defer to Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Director Hunt, do you have an answer to that question? Or Mr. Ellis?
[Zac Bears]: You need to speak into the microphone. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: But it's on the school. It was considered by the school committee. It's on the school website.
[Zac Bears]: But it will be posted on the Medford Public Schools website.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. Is your email pcushing at medford.k12.ma.us? It is. All right. Any further public comments, name and address for the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is a feasibility study was conducted, and I'll leave the specifics to Dr. Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like it's fair to say that maximizing the lifespan, minimizing the cost, and maximizing the efficiency of this project has been the touchstone of the feasibility study and the design process. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding, and I'm sure Dr. Cushing and Director Hunt can add to it, is that federal money has been used up until this point to fund the process up until this point, the federal ARPA money that came to the city. and there's not really private grants out there for this kind of project. And also I believe it was presented to the school committee that the MSBA was approached and they said that this project wouldn't apply under the MSBA, but.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions from members of the Council? Any further comment from members of the public on this item on the loan order for the school HVAC project? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, as amended by Councilor Tseng and seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to approve for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. Paper 24 slash five one dash 517 water and sewer capital stabilization fund appropriation request, dear President Bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following appropriation from the water and sewer capital stabilization fund lead line replacement rebate program. $100,000. As your honorable body knows, the water and sewer capital stabilization fund presently has a balance of $2 million. This was from retained earnings and appropriation from a stabilization account requires a two thirds majority vote of the City Council. DPW Commissioner McGivern is present to answer any questions. Thank you for your kind attention. This matter respectfully submitted Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. We have Commissioner McGivern, I believe, on Zoom. Did you make him a co-host, Mr. Quinn? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner McGibbon. You should be able to unmute. And if you want to share anything about this project before we go to questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm going to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on the lead line? Oh, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative done the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: While under suspension, Councilor Scarpelli has called papers 24-518 and 24-519. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: On the second by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 2-4-518, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the City Administration report back to the Council on the following information. costs associated with terminating the superintendent's contract, any communications, correspondences, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation, anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee, and interim appointment, be it so resolved that the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore our dropping bond rating, be it so resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees, utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits, Be it further resolved in the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present and be it resolved at the city administration report to the council, the cost associated for the drug testing of questionable drug testing of our DPW staff and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. Be it further resolved the council request to move to executive session if these issues are confidential. I'll recognize councilor Scarpelli and also note that I do have a response from the mayor which I will read after your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I have two documents from the administration that I'll read, and then I'll go to members of the council, and then we can go to public participation. First, I was on the bond rating we received a message from the mayor. Hello President Bears and city council members after a great deal of preparation and bond rating call last week. I'm pleased to report that our a three bond rating was reaffirmed by Moody's financial services company upon receiving updated documentation related to our fiscal year 23 audit. As you're likely aware the AA3 rating is regarded as a quote high grade rating and per Moody's analysis the city is in line for an elevated credit rating in the future. You can read about Moody's outlook on the city's financial health and borrowing strength in a press release on the city website. While this is welcome news it comes with opportunities for us to shore up our financial reporting operations and strive to increase our rating in the future. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my office. We then also received a message regarding Council Resolution 24518, which is what we're currently considering. The mayor said, hello, President Bears, I wanted to provide some insight on Council Resolution 24518. Quote, my responsibility as mayor is to the residents and taxpayers of the city of Medford. When I receive allegations from multiple parties alleging various employee matters, including potential misconduct, fraud, et cetera, I believe our community expects that I investigate these allegations to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, depending on the specific nature of the allegations at issue, our human resources department does not have the bandwidth to undertake investigations that are broad in scope or are too cumbersome that such efforts would impede daily office duties and responsibilities. Also, as it relates to school items, please refer all school matters to the school department. With respect to the portion of the proposed resolution pertaining to drug testing, this is a confidential personnel matter and due to individual privacy considerations, we cannot comment. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Brianna Lugo, current mayor. Yes. Any and if any other Councilors, please, you know, just signal if you'd like to speak. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It says, as it relates to school items, please refer school matters to the school department. That's what the email says. So we can send requests to the school.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Tseng and Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Yeah, we can take that up when we move to the voting if that's okay so we can hear just since it was presented as one, I think it's fair to hear it as one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation on this item. We'll take alternating public participation at the podium and on Zoom. Please raise your hand on Zoom if you'd like to participate. We'll start at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. It's all one item, so whichever items were included in that
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That's time. And we went two minutes over.
[Zac Bears]: I'll let her finish her sentence, but I just want you to acknowledge the time. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to acknowledge, I know you were speaking for a number of people. We do have rules. I did extensively go beyond those rules to hear the comment. That's going to be the one time that I do that tonight on this matter. If there are other people who would like to speak, there'll be a three minute time limit.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If you could place them on that desk over there.
[Zac Bears]: If you could please place them on the desk over there. Thank you. Councilor, you can place them on the desk over there. Thanks. Sure. Do we have any other public participation on the matter? Seeing none on Zoom. Okay. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have your time, I'm waiting for you to.
[Zac Bears]: You are allowed to make a public comment, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, it doesn't, it means that you have three minutes to share your perspective.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, it's not made up. Any further public comment? Oh, you relinquished the chair. You relinquished the podium. You relinquished the podium. You walked away from the podium. If you'd like to speak again, you can speak after anyone else who'd like to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Please follow the rules. It's how we maintain decorum and have civil discussion. It's fun, right? So fun. Any further public comment. Any further public comment we'd like to have here.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 more seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna just reiterate how the process works here. What has been described is not something that I would be comfortable with as a person, my role as the chairs. I shouldn't even be saying what I'm saying right now, till we've heard from the public till we've heard from all the Councilors until we that's that's the rules of this process are here, so that we can hear from the members of the Council I'm chairing the meeting. We can hear from members of the public under the rules, and then we can make comments. We've heard a case has been made. Folks have had an experience and said they had an experience that they felt very uncomfortable and felt was unjust. We've heard that. We have a short response from the mayor. I'm going to guess that most of the people behind this rail would like to learn more about what happened. And also just to be honest and direct, our role in this process is we do not, I am not the boss of any employee in the city. No one behind this rail is the manager of any employee in the city, except for this person right next to us is the only person in the city who works for the city council. Everybody else who works for the city of Medford works for the mayor of Medford or the superintendent of schools of the Medford public schools. So that's the role that we play here. I'm sure many of us would feel dismayed and feel that the experience that was described by the representative was not something that they would want to go through. I think everyone in the crowd would probably say the same. Now the rest of the facts that come out of that. We don't know all the answers. We just have what has been presented so far. And our action simply would be to say, we do not like that you did that mayor. When we talk about accountability for the mayor, that happens at the ballot box every two years. And that is how she's held accountable. Beyond that, there is nothing in the city charter, the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, federal law that empowers this council to order the mayor to not do what she did. The union has filed a suit, as is their right, on behalf of their members, disputing what happened. Individuals filed the suit. Thank you. Then the individuals filed the suit themselves. Thank you. And the representative presented it. I assumed that Teamsters Local 25 represented, but the members have filed suit. That's their right. Beyond that, their recourse is we can hear facts here. We can hear statements made here. People can speak at the podium and the Councilors can look for additional information, but that's why we're having the discussion that we're having. And no one behind the rail is obligated at this point to say, their opinion, whether they feel like they have enough information to make an informed discussion, all I can say is that the experience that was described is not something I would want to experience, and I'm sure we all would like to find out more information about why it happened and to make sure that whatever recourse is available to the people who experienced it is there. Thank you. And one of the reasons that we have rules is so that we maintain decorum and that I can explain the process and what this council has the power to do and not do. So I appreciate that. I'll go to Zoom and then we'll come back to the podium. On Zoom, we have Nadeen. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Nadeen, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Um, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the representative from Local 25 said that a needle was found, an unused needle was found in the bathroom at the DPW facility.
[Zac Bears]: I do not have information. I mean, I don't have that information. Um, all I have is the statement that we received from the mayor, their resolution by the Councilor and what we've heard at the podium.
[Zac Bears]: I was, I've heard from the representative that it was at, uh, the DPW bathroom.
[Zac Bears]: At James street.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes, Nate, and I'll wait till you get to the phone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Martin. In terms of the specifics, I mean, it sounds like this is going to be litigated and evidence will be presented on that litigation. Any further public comments? Seeing none, I will go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan. Oops, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to take the discussion that's on the table and then we can take any motions. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that we have received dozens of warrant articles, multiple reports about the legal costs paid out by the city, from the city administration. It's public documents. We can provide them. They're sent to us by email on a monthly basis. The administration can provide them. And the city has never spent more than the budgeted amount for the law department, budgeted in our fiscal year budget. there has been no additional spending or major financial impact on the city beyond the legal budget that is budgeted every year through the fiscal year budget process and that is proven out by the financial documents.
[Zac Bears]: I'm speaking right now. Thank you. Any further comments from members of council? I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming has invoked rule 21. I think we have a number of financial items. We talked about, we talked about Hold on a minute, please. Thank you. Cost associated with terminating the school and superintendent's contract. Finance director appeared articulate dropping bond rating. Utilization of a complete financial report. I mean, there's multiple financial items in this paper. I'll read the rule.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just, I'm... Any councillor... I'm going to read the rules. I'm going to read the rules. Thanks. We'll take a look and I can ask for an interpretation. Oh, that's our parliamentarian. The clerk needed. Thank you. does any finance paper related?
[Zac Bears]: Please hold on a minute, Councilor Scarpelli. Please just take a breath. If we would be willing to discuss the financial elements or sever out the financial elements of the paper. Um, the rule is really broad and it's been used incredibly broadly in this council for a very long time. So, um, yeah, it has been several times. Councilor Scarpelli, please. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. What are you talking about? You have done rule 21 multiple times as well, Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. I'm going to rule that we're not going to invoke rule 21 if we sever out financial elements from non-financial elements of the paper. Is there a motion to sever the paper into at least elements regarding finances and non-finances? Or does the Councilor want to pull back rule 21?
[Zac Bears]: On a motion to question the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. I'm not sure what the motion is. It's just a... I have said that I believe that there are financial elements to this paper. My ruling that there are finance elements to the paper that rule 21 would apply here. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like there's two options in front of us. One is I have ruled that there are financial elements to this paper. Um, we could move forward with questioning that, that any of this counts as a finance paper, um, or we could consider the motion to sever prior to that. Uh, that's up to, um, councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan did indicate their decision wanting a motion to sever. Okay. um then uh there's but it was after the second there was already a motion to question the ruling of the chair the motion to sever was was that we would do it after discussion you didn't make a motion to sever you said it was a recommended course of action there was no second there's a second emotion to overrule the ruling of the chair that there are financial elements in this paper that qualify under rule 21 Okay. If they want to reach out to me now, I would be happy to hear their interpretation.
[Zac Bears]: Is there further discussion on the motion of question really in the chair?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I would just note that I am actually operating under legal opinions that I received that rule 21 stems from the charter right. Councilor Scarpelli invoked the charter right in June, and I had to go to legal counsel to discuss that charter right, and legal counsel informed me that the charter right under this rule applies to any motion, order, or resolution under consideration by the council. So it's kind of a catch-22 situation. I don't like it. It's one of the reasons I think we need to have a charter change. And I believe I misinterpreted it last time by being too restrictive. And that's why I'm not being restrictive now, based on advice of counsel. So, we are where we are because this has been invoked multiple times by multiple Councilors, and given the council opinion that I received in July. I believe that under mass general law is the charter that's been adopted by the city. The interpretation that I received from the city's legal counsel was that literally any paper could be postponed by any Councilor until the next meeting for any reason. So, um, huh? Yeah, it wasn't from the mayor. It was from the council at KP law. So, um, We could take a motion on the ruling of the chair, but again, that's the council advice that advice I received from council. I've been on both sides of this. I was too restrictive last time when I ruled something one way, and now I'm trying to go the other way because of the advice I received.
[Zac Bears]: He said that he wanted more information. He wanted more time to receive more information. I don't know if he can speak to it, If we want to go on the motion overall, the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, that's the motion that's on the floor. Councilor Scarpelli has not withdrawn, so I will take the vote on that. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: I can't vote to overrule my own ruling, can I? I'm going to vote yes. Actually, that's a great idea. I will vote present. 3-3, the motion fails. So we'll go to the next motion, which is the motion to sever. Is there a motion, there's a motion to sever, Councilor Callahan, do you want to go further into that?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: So they're divided by topic. The motions would be the first vote would be on requesting those from the school department, the following information, the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract, course communications, correspondence, meeting minutes, records, and reports regarding the separation and the anticipated costs of the search committee and interim appointment.
[Zac Bears]: All right, the second is the finance director appear before the council to articulate a plan to restore the bond rating that was amended, I believe by Councilor Scarpelli. Okay. Okay. The third one is regarding private investigators and resolve that the administration report back to the council that identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators and a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. And then the fourth is the administrative reporting to the council on the cost of questionable drug testing and a report outlining the reasons for these tests. I'm being further resolve the council move to executive session if the issues are confidential. Does that sound right, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a second on the motion to sever? Second. On the motion to sever by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. Before we call the roll, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli has struck that. So on the motion to sever as amended, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion severed. Or is that 5-2? 6-1. 6-1. Thank you. So we'll take the first one, which is regarding the cost associated in terminating the superintendent's contract and the anticipated cost of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment. Any discussion on that item? I think we can label these 518A, B, C, and D.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on that item? Mr. Jones, do you want to talk about the superintendent? Is it regarding the bond rating, the private investigators, or the... Sure. Let me just recognize you. Public participation, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, I said that what has been presented to the council and the legal fees paid to outside lawyers hasn't been paid out of the law budget and has not exceeded the law budget in any prior fiscal year. based on the reports given to us by the administration.
[Zac Bears]: It also includes ordinary expenses for settlements. How much is that? I think it's $100,000. Very small, $100,000. It's a quarter to a fifth of the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: From the discussions we've had and several of them in public session, there are claims paid by insurance that are paid by the city's insurance. Which type of insurance? I would have to look into the specific insurance policies that they're paid out under.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We have been presented the warrant.
[Zac Bears]: You can absolutely see the warrant articles. What I'm telling you is that inside the warrant articles, there have not been settlements paid in those amounts. So, they're not coming from the city's general fund. Okay. So, where are they coming from? We have been advised by the administration that there have been settlements paid by the city's insurance.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So we have a policy with an insurance company that's paying these out. There are several policies that the city has with insurance companies on a number of issues. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: The premiums for the insurance are paid and there's an insurance section in the city budget.
[Zac Bears]: It's not meant to be a back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: We do literally audited in the city ward articles. Thank you. We do. It's not accurate. All right. Is there any further discussion on the item regarding the school superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Senna. And I just did pull up the Mass General Law, Chapter 43, Section 22. which was invoked by Councilor Scarpelli in June. I did seek legal counsel advice after my interpretation of that rule, and I would just say again, legal counsel essentially informed me that any member can postpone any resolution, motion, or order for any reason if they want to. It's chapter 43, section 22. He said rule 21. He didn't. He didn't. He didn't. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: I sought further opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I will say some other lawyers disagree with the interpretation of council, but I will go with the interpretation of the city's legal council, even if I don't agree with it. Any further discussion on the motion? Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve Paper 24-518A regarding the school superintendent's contract, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Gallagher. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is now the be it resolved that the school department respond, report back to the council the information of the cost associated with terminating the school superintendent's contract and the anticipated costs of the superintendent search committee and interim appointment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative. The motion fails. 254518B. This is regarding the bond rating. Do we want to amend that to something else? You had said earlier, Councilor Scarpel, you wanted to amend that to request a meeting? So this is amended to be resolved that the City Council requests a report on why the bond rating was temporarily rescinded. On that motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one of the negative, the motion passes. 24-518-C which is be it resolved that the city administration cease and desist the use of private investigators to follow and harass employees utilizing contractually afforded leave benefits be it further resolved the city administration report back to the council with the identified line in the budget where we are paying private investigators in a complete financial report from the start of this practice to the present. Any further discussion? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, could you articulate those amendments?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the item? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, if you have more comments, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I don't think we have the authority to require the cease and desist.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on this item as amended? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Does that sound about right? Great. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Callahan as seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. 24 518 D be resolved by the city of minutes that the city administration report to the council, the costs associated for questionable drug testing of DPW staff and report outlining the reasons for these tests and for the result of the council request to move to executive session. If these issues are confidential. Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So it sounds like the amended resolution is being resolved that the council requests the administration report on the city's drug policy and the cost of drug testing of employees. Right. Okay. Mr. Clerk, when you have that, let me know. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be honest. I do not believe that we will ever receive that information. And I personally do not feel comfortable asking for it.
[Zac Bears]: What are Councilors saying?
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that regardless of any of that, this is very clearly the subject of litigation and the city will reply that because it's the subject of litigation, they're not going to be providing any information that could be detrimental to their case. So if we could stick to things Yeah, great. So we're going to stick to the drug policy and the cost associated with drug testing employees. Great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Callahan, I seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator, another negative motion passes. 24-519, be it resolved that the city City Administration give an update on the request of meeting to review the report compiled Medford Fire Department report compiled by the consultants of the City Council voted approve for its funding for the resolve that the administration include Fire Chief and MFD Union leadership to review the report and be prepared to meet an executive session to have a discussion with its findings. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure what the executive session exemption would be. I think we're going to have to consult council on that. I believe we move forward with this resolution. Did we make a motion to request a meeting? We did that that evening. That evening. Okay. That was a motion that we've got nothing back. And this is a motion to request a meeting. Request an update on the meeting requests regarding the MRI report for the fire department.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So, amend to the second session to be that. Okay. Uh the council will, council leadership will speak to the city's legal council to determine if there's a valid executive session. Option. Option. Got it. Okay. I'll go to
[Zac Bears]: Right. Yeah. All of all meetings have to start as open meetings.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So this is a motion to request an update on the requested meeting, uh, to review the MRI report regarding the Medford fire department. And the amended resolution is to, uh, request a committee of the whole meeting and to determine on advice of legal counsel, uh, whether or not, uh, the city council can enter executive session to discuss elements of that report.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, just to clarify, has that not been provided with?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it'll be a public meeting. So you can absolutely be present. Okay. And the report is public record. It was sent to us. I'm happy to forward it to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I believe there's any issues with the name tells us have any issues with that. Great. Thank you. Yes, it's still Yeah. I don't think a further amendment is needed. Yeah, no, it's it's public record. It's public document. And you have you have a copy of that, correct? Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah. Alright. Thank you. On the motion. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I believe the second was Councilor Lazzaro Bennett and Councilor Tseng is the second. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24490, this is a continued public hearing. We open this public hearing on December 3rd, 2024 in our regular meeting. This is regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District zoning. I'm reopening the public hearing now. We did receive a report. This was reported. Recommendations were reported to us from the community development board. So we have Mystic Avenue corridor district in front of us. And with that, I will entertain any motions or discussion from the council before we hear from members of the public in the public hearing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it is in page six of the packet here, public hearing notices, it's amendments to add the Mystic Avenue corridor district. And we've now have joint advertising of community development board and zoning city council public hearings. So we opened this hearing on December 3rd and it was continued by a vote of the council to today's meeting. Council Vice President Collins and then Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just for clarification, those last two items are keeping in how it is currently in the ordinance. And there was just a typographic error in the final document. Great, I'm seeing a nod from the- That is correct. Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Is there a second on the motion by Councilor Collins? Councilor Tseng? This is for final approval because there's not three readings on zoning. Yeah. Well, technically there's like five readings on zoning. And this is the end of it. There's a lot of public hearings on zoning. So I will go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Scarpelli. Sorry, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That's the hearing. The documents were distributed to the council by email and are attached online.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, they were not.
[Zac Bears]: Just go to the, that's the hearing notice. Go under the meeting files. You see them under the meeting files. I'll go to Director Hunt to describe the Community Development Board memorandum. We also do have Danielle Evans still with us at this point. If you want to go to Danielle.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks for sticking it out.
[Zac Bears]: And generally, you're talking about situations where projects would already be undergoing a special permit process or site plan review?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, anything else?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm gonna go back to Councilor Callahan, then to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would also just note, I don't think that people who are unrelated are allowed to live in an apartment regardless of whether co-living as a specific use is allowed or not. Right. But okay, is that a motion to strike line A8? Yes, thank you. There's an amendment motion to add to the motion of Councilor Collins to strike line A8 from the use table by Councilor Callahan. Is there a second? All right. Is there any, I guess really, is there any opposition to that amendment? Seeing none, that'll be included in Councilor Collins' motion. Any further discussion? I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. As I noted, the public hearing is open unless there's any further comments by members of the Council or Director Hunt. The public hearing is open and we can hear from anyone who is in favor or opposed or otherwise has comments on this proposal. You can come to the podium and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just point to the city's comprehensive plan talks about shared vision and values for the future. That's the document where a lot of the zoning comes from. Name and address for the record, please name, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Jamie, if you could get a little closer to the microphone and we're going to turn you up a little bit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. We're going to be considering the community solar program as the discussion and the zoning project continues. We need to look into some specifics on it, but the plan is to include it. Right now, I'm actually taking some information provided to me from some community activists, providing it to the zoning team that's working on this, and then it's likely that that, excuse me, will be included. as an incentive piece across all of the districts where there's incentive zoning. We just want to get it right. Thanks. Any further comment on this public hearing? Name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Uh thank you, Paulette. I just want to note both of those projects were private projects. So, the private property owner decided who they wanted to work with and then they were the ones who submitted the plans to the city and and the city doesn't have any choice as to who we would get to representing private property owners and they are allowed to. petition the city within the zoning ordinance and the Massachusetts general laws for whatever they need to do on their private property. So, so we don't have any.
[Zac Bears]: Only the private property landowner has the right. They have their unlimited right to choose who they want to represent them when making petitions to the city regarding permits, licenses, et cetera. We don't have any control over that.
[Zac Bears]: That's, that's, um, pretty, pretty foundational, um, under the current way that the state and federal laws work for private property.
[Zac Bears]: No, so that would be if the city owned land and was then trying to build a project in these areas, then we would have to go through this process, the bidding process procurement. Zoning affects private property owners. I mean, it affects public property nominally, but most of the property in the city is owned by private entities, individuals, corporations, groups. So when we change the zoning, that changes the laws about what we allow private property owners to do. um private property owners can pick any construction company any lawyer or any designer any architect that they want to make a proposal make a design um and the city just has the process of outlined here like a site plan review process or special permitting process where the city has some limited, in some cases limited, in some cases significant discretionary choice as to what to allow, but we do not control who owns private property and we do not control who private property owners choose to hire to design projects, to construct projects, to make proposals to the city. So, and I don't think there's any law that would allow us to change that.
[Zac Bears]: I know that between the performance standards and the other things that are set in the zoning ordinance, the different boards, community development board especially, and other site plan review and special permit granting authorities will use the power allowed to us by the state zoning law to from these processes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's all right. OK. It's chicken, man. There's not so much you can do.
[Zac Bears]: It is Councilor Lazzaro's birthday, so let's give a little. And we have a big crowd, but.
[Zac Bears]: I think she just doesn't want any more comments on the sauce.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? I see one hand on Zoom. I will go to, oh, that hand has gone down. So I will, if there's no further public comment in this public hearing, I will declare the public hearing closed. Any comments on the motion by Councilor Collins as amended by Councilor Callahan and seconded by Councilor Tseng to adopt the recommendations of the Community Development Board and to typos and strike line A8 of the use table Councilor Callahan
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yes. And I think, you know, appreciate that correction that, There is one of the districts within this corridor, a sub-district that does allow special permit for the drive-thru, that's the commercial district, that is south of Mystic Valley Parkway-Harvard Street intersection and bordering the highway, which tends to be the area with the least possibility of becoming a more walkable area in this district. The rest of the district is really primed for becoming a much safer and much less of a, um strode as people call them which is a very very wide street that people drive down very very fast and is very very dangerous for anyone who's not in a car and quite frankly is dangerous for people who are in cars um so that is uh some of the values that we put in here um i just want to uh note that this is a long meeting um appreciate folks who've stuck around sometimes these kind of major changes get lost in the sauce of meetings like this. That's happened really a lot this year. We've made a ton of progress this year, and this is a really important ordinance that I think, for me, advances values of safe, well-maintained, and climate-resilient streets and open spaces, housing affordability and stability, and a number of other values that I hold and that I know were part of the reason that I ran for office and continue to run. It's a big moment. We have a motion to adopt this proposed amendment to the Medford Zoning Ordinance as amended by adopting the recommendations for amendment by the Community Development Board and the further amendments by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan. And that is as seconded by Councilor Tseng. So on this resolution, the first of many to come in this zoning updates project, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative, the motion passes. At this point, I would like to, quite frankly, given the late hour, I'd like to run a quick unofficial poll on the remaining items. How many people are here for the special permit for signs at the Meadow Glen? He's gone. So, all right. Is there a motion to table that to the next regular meeting?
[Zac Bears]: It's a continuance? All right, we'll do that. We'll do that and then I'll take my poll. On the motion to continue the amendment to the special permit for signs, paper 24514 to the next regular meeting. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure. It's Scarpelli Callahan. You want my job? You might both need to do it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I've been affirming the negative motion passes. Let's continue to the next regular meeting. 24, 516, Barry's back. Let's take this quick. I think everything's in order. This is common victors license for Mrs. Murphy's. Barry, if you want to talk about the business for a second.
[Zac Bears]: And this is a pub in Medford Square. Correct. A pub in Medford Square. They said it could never happen. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli, recognize you on the speaker. Go ahead. Oh, here you go. I gotcha. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, do you have a comment? seconded by or comment by, is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, comment by Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're working on that to wait a few months. And I do want to recognize the clerk who rarely speaks but would like to speak tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I just want to echo that there are a lot of people in this building who have difficult jobs dealing with folks who want things to happen faster and when you hear from the clerk and representing his clerks about someone who was calm and patient with the government process over many months, including tonight. It doesn't go unnoticed.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm grateful. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Good luck. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: He thought about it. He thought about saying more. Vice President Collins, you're recognized. Oh, you're recognized.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, there's three items left. I'm guessing on the poll of the three items left, how many people are here for the Safe Communities Ordinance and the Community Control Republic Surveillance Ordinance? If you could raise your hands. How many folks are here on Tufts? And how many folks are here on Salem Street Corridor referral? All right, got it. So, and that, if you could just move to take the, let's just get the folks out of here.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Assembly Member Nunn and negative motion passes 23-055. This is the welcoming city ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favor of a brief summary from the proponent? On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, once again, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. All right, so Councilor Tseng, if you want to give a summary and then we can move into Councilor discussion and then public participation. Great.
[Zac Bears]: It is visible on the screen.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just is it fair to say that these amendments reflect the view of legal counsel to ensure that this policy aligns with federal law while maintaining the intent and integrity of the Of the ordinance proposed and the policy that has been in place through the Medford Police Department for the last eight years?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lemmie. If you could, um, save a copy of this with no track changes and submit a clean version to the clerk for inclusion in the council records, that would be much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: And also we need it for the advertisement for second reading. With that, I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Vice President Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So, so, okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to
[Zac Bears]: I believe he's been invited, but he can continue to be invited again. I understand that, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Because this is moving for a first reading, there can't be a committee meeting on it, but we could discuss it when it's up for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: We can't hold a committee meeting on a paper that's not in queue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that whether you do or don't, it's not happening. Yeah, I hear you. I'm just saying it doesn't, there's no extra vote that's needed on it. So it doesn't save 10 seconds. Um, any further discussion by members of the council, like councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council? I'm just going to say very quickly that on this and the next ordinance, a very dangerous federal administration with a very particular and specific agenda is going to be coming into place in about a month. And As a council, I think it is responsible and essential of us to act by passing a law that lets the people in this community know that the police of this city are not going to enact an agenda that weaponizes people's identities, people's documentation status, people's very livelihoods. And that is essential. Yeah, there might be consequences. We may not get the FBI grant for, I don't know, whatever, more, we might not get the weapons that come for a discounted rate or something, right? These certain things that the Department of Justice and other agencies send to municipalities. To me, that is a very small cost to standing up for what's right, standing up for our values and letting, again, the people of this community know that they will be safe If they want to report an incident to a Medford police officer, that they don't have to be afraid for their livelihoods and their ability to stay in this country. If they want to be a witness in another case, if they just want to be a good citizen, right? And there's a lot of other reasons too. Folks who are pulled over, folks who are questioned or whatever those might be. They shouldn't also have to have that added fear that they may well not be going home to their kids, because what we've heard over and over again in the last administration, and quite frankly, this administration seems dangerously more competent to implement this horrific agenda, is that kids went home after school and their parents were gone. And that's not something that we should have in this city. With that, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. If you'd like to speak on this item, you can raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to switch to Zoom. We'll go to Munir Germanis. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes and then we'll go back to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Zoom. Name and address for the record. Jamie Tallarita, you have three minutes on this item.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. We'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, and good luck tomorrow morning. I'm going to go to Zoom to the Reverend Wendy Villarola-Padre. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes, Reverend Wendy.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that. Thank you, Jean. Councilor Leming, do you want to, I really don't think, I would really prefer that you stop sharing the screen. At this point, I personally cannot handle looking at the lines of legal text. If you could explain changes or explain who you've communicated with about those changes beyond KP law, or that we could have a further discussion between now and the third reading, I think that would be my preference. I just appreciate folks dealing with the fact that I just can't look at green line changes at this point.
[Zac Bears]: or nodding yes.
[Zac Bears]: I think Matt, if you could read that sentence and then Jean, if you could read that existing sentence from the existing policy.
[Zac Bears]: Was the language that Councilor Leming read prior to the amendment received late today by KP Law in line with the policy in your opinion?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. OK. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think at this point, we've talked through the one I agree with you going forward on the rest of it. It does sound like maybe if someone wanted to make the motion to adopt all of the amendments from KPLL except for that amendment, and then we can do the rest. I think it's working. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, Councilor Collins, are you making a motion?
[Zac Bears]: Give Councilor Collins a floor. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Jean, could you just say the section number for me again? 50-103 subsection C. Thank you. Got it. All right. We're going to go back to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is a welcoming city ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Merritt, I'm just going to give you your time.
[Zac Bears]: We did pass that.
[Zac Bears]: The city can employ people who are not residents of the city of Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I apologize for interrupting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will just note there are a lot of things that have been legal that have not been moral. in the history of this country and many other countries. And I will also note that I have multiple people very important to me who are naturalized citizens of this country who are very afraid of being deported because the president has said he's going to do it. Or the president-elect, sorry. Thank God for another four weeks. So yeah, I'm grateful that your experiences, that the people in your life who have that identity are not afraid. There are people very close to me who are citizens of this country, who were not born citizens of this country, who are deeply afraid that they will not be allowed to remain here because of the words and actions, promised actions of the person who's going to be taking the office of the president. So, yeah, I like that Medford's not going to do his bidding because I want people I love to stay here. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm sure they'd love to use real documents if they could. I'm sure that they would love to be using real documents if they were legally allowed to. I'll go to Councilor Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thanks, and we will, but I'm going to say something first. Um, something I've been sitting with up here for a couple hours that I've just want to voice When we talk about dehumanizing rhetoric, when we talk about a dehumanizing politics that is infecting civil discourse at all levels, we experience that here. I really don't mean to personalize this, but this ordinance is one thing. We're talking about a surveillance ordinance in a minute. I just want to say that a member of the community tonight wrote about me in a public forum. If Zach turned up dead, I would not mind it. So that was written about me tonight. And I'm just raising that point, it's not really exactly relevant to the core principles of this ordinance, but it is relevant to the idea of a welcoming city and about just horrifically dehumanizing rhetoric that is pervading civil discourse. So when we talk about maybe not disrupting a public meeting and following the rules and listening to the rules of the chair and making sure that people feel safe to talk to their government officials, whether that's police or city councilors or anybody else, it is a local issue. And so I've stood here for two hours after having had to read that. And I just felt like, quite frankly, people deserve to know that this isn't just about a police policy and putting it into law. It's about some really harmful things that are happening in this community, some really harmful approaches and words and actions that are being brought to the forefront of a politics that I don't think any of us benefit from. So when we talk about division, that's what's dividing us. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt this ordinance for first reading as amended, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is moved for first reading. Offered by Vice President Collins. Amendments to the Community Control of Republic Surveillance Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Would it be fair to say that to summarize these two amendments, the amendment to Section 5079 requires that any records kept by surveillance technologies that are not exempt, that are not required to be kept by the state or local law would not be kept?
[Zac Bears]: And then 5080, that this is amending essentially that it was unlawful for the city.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is that in the first sentence?
[Zac Bears]: So could you send an amended version to the clerk, please? Thank you. I think they're the same change in both sentences.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. As amended.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I would just note that the CCOPS ordinance exempts CCTV cameras on public buildings. It exempts the ability of our police department to receive data from private cameras, which is what most of the data was in the case that you mentioned. So it actually doesn't do any of that. Councilor Collins. You can't help it. Truth matters, George. I'm sorry, George. But don't do what you're doing. It's just the truth. George, please stop. Councilor Collins has the floor. It's embarrassing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt for first reading, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. And if you'd like to speak in your own Zoom, please raise your hand.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I know, but you're not the only one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Paulette, I hope I can allay some of your concerns just to say this does not ban surveillance cameras, does not ban the police from asking private businesses that have surveillance cameras to provide that information to them. It does not ban the city from having surveillance cameras for a number of purposes. And this ordinance is an amendment to an ordinance that already exists and has existed for over a year and has not impacted criminal enforcement and cases in the city. So I hope that allays some of the fears that you just raised. for, you know, when information goes out there, sometimes it can be interpreted in different ways. I just want to tell you all of these two paragraphs are amending is about the city being able to go and buy everybody's data from Amazon and then use that for some purpose other than, you know, I don't even know what purpose, but essentially going to a company and buying everything that the Internet knows about you. and then using that to try to control your life. That's what this is about tonight. Okay. It's not about surveillance cameras. If you read the existing surveillance ordinance that's in place, it exempts CCTV cameras that protect public property. It doesn't mean that private businesses can't have their surveillance cameras like the hostile in the case recently that the mask down.
[Zac Bears]: It doesn't do anything like that. So that's not what this does. I don't want you to be afraid. This ordinance is about the government and its access to information about its residents and not abusing residents by buying information in bulk to try to use that for some purpose. Who knows what purpose they might use it for.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Stay at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to approve these amendments to the CCOPS ordinance for first reading. Mr. Clerk, please. As amended. As amended. Please call the roll, Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. So that brings us, I believe, a reversion to the regular order of business. There's two items left. We have whatever is left of the regular order of business, I guess I could say. We have mine, which I can't find right now. And I'm going to turn this over to Councilor Collins to read and control. If you could leave your copy down there, you can use my copy up here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, for your presentation. I think it really speaks to all of the issues, or at least some of the issues around 401 Boston Avenue. I do know we have a number of residents still on Zoom who wanted to speak to this. I just want to note that tomorrow night is the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board is the authority that is reviewing this application. And I just wanted to also note a couple of things here. To me, I am grateful that Tufts is taking on this responsibility to add housing on its campus. That is something that this community has wanted Tufts to do for a long time. But every project that Tufts does falls under a greater scope of the balance of power between municipalities and large educational nonprofits. That is way out of whack when it comes to our state laws. When it comes to our state laws around site plan, Dover amendment, and what these institutions have to do to collaborate with municipalities and their neighbors. When it comes to the pilot legislation, payments in lieu of taxes and the, you know, five years ago we analyzed the Tufts on its non-taxable property would be paying $8 million. and it is paying $500,000. It's a huge loss for us when it comes to the city services that we need to provide, and the city services that institutions like that consume, both on campus and off campus. So this really does fit into this larger question, which is why a big piece of this resolution is about the state legislation that this body has supported. both the home rule petitions around institutional master plans that we have submitted along with our neighbors in Somerville to ask Tufts and require Tufts to provide a master plan for their growth and development so that we can be aware of that and inform our community about that, as well as the pilot legislation to require a 25% pilot versus the completely voluntary system we have now. One reason I bring up the institutional master plan is that around this Tufts proposal, you know, couple of years ago we had Tufts initially doing the storm proposal at around seven stories and 400 beds. It's now 10 stories and 700 beds and I am actually a fan of more beds I think Tufts taking on more responsibility for on campus housing is a good thing. But I can understand how residents feel that the maybe the scope of the site plan and the height of the building and the shadows are a major issue, or even residents who just feel that the process itself, where it was seven stories now it's 10 stories, how do we get there. And what what's the city's role in trying to mitigate and mediate and collaborate and negotiate in that process. City doesn't really seem to have much leverage. So I really just respect the residents in the area who have advocated for changes to this project. I want to put ourselves on record as supporting those efforts. I also did speak to the mayor earlier today about this issue. She and noted that she had sent a letter and that she supports our efforts and advocacy around this issue, but also that she has had some good conversations with Tufts and is hopeful for an outcome that has more mitigation, more community benefits than the initial Tufts proposal of three or four months ago. That process is ongoing in the Community Development Board. I also spoke with Rocco DiRico from Tufts, and I do have want to just read an email that he sent over. This is to the Honorable President, Zach Bears, Medford City Council regarding Resolution 24-513 to request changes to the proposed Tufts Dormitory project. Dear President Bears, I ask that the following statement be read at tonight's City Council meeting. Tufts University is proposing a new residence hall to be operated by Capstone Management on Boston Avenue. The proposed project is part of an ongoing effort that meets many of the city's and the university's shared goals. More on campus housing, mixed use development, density near public transit, and an energy efficient building design that meets the city's specialized stretch energy code. The university has spent the last four months meeting with neighbors, government officials, the Community Development Board, and other stakeholders. As a result of those meetings, we have added several community benefits to the project. Those improvements include new sidewalks on both sides of Boston Avenue, new crosswalks, new trees, new retail options, and a blue bike station. All these improvements will make Boston Avenue greener, more walkable, and more accessible. Tufts University has hosted three community meetings on this project. At these meetings, we listened to our neighbors, acknowledged their concerns, and acted upon feedback. The university has also agreed to a $500,000 one-time payment to create a neighborhood improvement fund for the neighborhood impacted by the project. We look forward to working with the neighbors and the city to determine the best way to utilize these funds. Thank you for the city's partnership with Tufts University on this project and many other initiatives. The university remains committed to building more housing, revitalizing Boston Avenue, and improving accessibility. This project will have a positive impact on the city and the university. Sincerely, Rocco DiRico, Executive Director of Government and Community Relations, Tufts University. So I wanted to read that to note. That is the position of Tufts University. And Rocco and I have disagreed on many issues over the years, and we are able to have amicable discussions based on the positions that we both hold. And I just say that because, again, commenting on civil discourse, I think, and what that means and how the truth plays a part in it. And I also just want to say I have some honest disagreements. with Rocco, especially when it comes to what is the responsibility of these large educational nonprofit institutions to the municipalities, the cities, and the towns that they call home. And I don't think state law reflects what the best arrangement of that should look like. And I think until we have changes there and until Tufts and cities like Benford are able to work together as partners to rebalance that relationship, it's going to poison processes, community processes around construction, around pilot, around expansion, around what these institutions mean to the communities that they call home. And I think that's what's happened here. I think there's a lot of good that can come out of this project. I think there's some things that could change, and I would hope would change, and there's some things that maybe just can't change, and that's going to be really difficult to deal with. I know that a lot of folks don't feel heard in the process, even, even with everything that Rocco said, people don't feel heard and people feel like Tufts just has so much power that it feels like a bully institution. And that's really difficult. And I don't think Tufts wants to be seen as that I don't think they want to act like that. And I think because, sadly, everyone in our society seems married to the idea that we just have to do whatever the law requires and nothing more, because the law is so imbalanced in Tufts' favor, they may not even realize how they're appearing and presenting to the community. So I really hope we can see some systemic change here. I think this project is sitting in that larger context. But I do hope that our Community Development Board can work to get to a project approval that also reflects as much mitigation as possible. And that in some ways, this resolution enhances the negotiating position of the city to secure additional community benefits. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You know, it's funny, the name bears derives from Pierce, and this picks it up as Pierce, which is so interesting. We should talk about that for 15 minutes, I think. All right, last item on the agenda, legally required referral. This is our proposed amendments to the Benford Zoning Ordinance, Salem Street Corridor District for referral to the Community Development Board. Is there a motion to first we need a motion to waive the reading for a brief summary. So moved on that motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor let me Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have a negative motion passes. So this is the proposed Salem Street Corridor Zoning District. This is the product of several meetings of the Planning and Permitting Committee. The memorandum contains the draft text for the following proposed zoning changes. to amend 94 dash 2.1 division into districts to amend 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations and dimensional standards to end table. of dimensional requirements to amend the definitions and to insert the section 94-9X Salem Street Corridor District. And so that is the summary of this. There's obviously much more detail here in this document of proposed zoning changes. But what I'm going to do for now is I'm just going to outline the process here. So, um, two years ago, uh, the city released a comprehensive plan that comprehensive plan includes a number of recommendations around updates to the city zoning. Uh, last year, the city council received funding and issued an RFP for proposals for zoning consultant. We were able to choose the proposal of Innes Associates, which is a group that has a lot of done a lot of great work. They are, um, the proponent primary writers of the regulations for the MBTA Communities Act and also we're our consultant on the comprehensive plan. So they have intimate knowledge of the city's comprehensive plan and its zoning requirements. Since then, the planning and permitting committee has held 16 or 17 meetings this year with Innes Associates regarding a zoning updates project. It's reported out a number of items including this, the Salem Street Corridor District. At this point, this is a vote to refer to the Community Development Board this initial proposal. From this point forward, there will be two public hearings. Community Development Board will open a public hearing, followed by the City Council opening a public hearing, which people can be heard. Community Development Board will review this and make recommendations to the City Council, and the City Council will then consider this, consider those recommendations, consider any other amendments, and then take a final vote on whether to amend the city's zoning ordinance. Similarly, earlier tonight if folks are paying attention or were attending this meeting earlier. We approved the Mystic Avenue corridor district, which followed the same process, and this amendment and other amendments will also have several public meetings, generally at least two of the council before the public hearings, followed by at least two public hearings, and sometimes those public hearings occur over multiple meetings as well. So this proposal will go to the Community Development Board for a public hearing in the new year. Recognizing Councilor Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Tseng, I will recognize Councilor Skarpuk.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a B paper?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. That's a B paper from Councilor Scarpelli to hold a regular meeting or sorry, what meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sorry, what? i guess the public hearing of the council after the community development board that'd be great i will have to check to see if that's possible with the tv station and hybrid meetings any further comment on the resolution or the b paper i'll go to councillor callahan
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, this is just for referral to Community Development Board. If we want to include as an amendment that there's a recommendation to strike A8. All right. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I would just note that we're 2,500 feet from the Roberts School right now in this chamber. And I would just also note that the proposal that we accepted didn't include the number of meetings that we're talking about here. So I'll see what we can do around the logistics of it. But Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: All right, guys, like, let's just close it up here. Literally the proposal that we accepted.
[Zac Bears]: If I could, thank you. The proposal that we accepted regarding the zoning consultant did not include the meetings that have been discussed. Even though they were in the request for proposal, the proposal that this council, not even this council, the previous council voted to accept, it's just in the proposal. You can't disagree with the document. It's not possible. I went back and read the document. Yes, I did. What do you mean I didn't? What are you talking about? Good Lord. Go. It's just like, if there's no commitment to the truth, I have a duty as the chair to ensure that the members of this body have accurate factual information. It's a fundamental duty of this role. And I will not abrogate it. Public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please be an adult.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That's three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further public comment? Seeing none, is there any further discussion on this referral to the Community Development Board? We do have one more public comment on Zoom. I will go to Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please. Trying to unmute you, but we're only, there you go. All right, thank you, please. Yes, we can hear you, please.
[Zac Bears]: The donation was accepted. We did accept it. I'm not sure what the next steps are from the administration in terms of lights. If any member of the council would like to volunteer to follow up on that. If not, I will see if I can get a follow-up from the administration and I could try to email it to you, Andy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Councilor Lazzaro is going to follow up on that. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: James D, I'm just gonna have to ask you to change your last name so I can see it before I recognize you. All right, I'm gonna recognize James, Darren. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Well, that's about how this meeting's gone. I think probably not, but there is public participation. Is there any further public participation? On the motion of the B paper of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: On the main paper by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Sagan to refer to the Community Development Board.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, 60 affirmative, 1 negative. This is referred to the Community Development Board. Public participation. We'll take public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comments. Any further comments under public participation? Seeing none, on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think just to the goal of the outline as presented today was to identify when certain areas of the city we'll see map changes. And then additionally, within those months, we'll also be looking at some of those other things. So I think TDM, basically I'm repeating what everyone else said, but there are topics that are going to be brought up over those five months that aren't included in that outline right now, because we felt like the priority was to try to let people know when the committee would be looking at map changes in different parts of the city.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to go through, discuss the process from here on out, just to confirm with everyone. Sorry. I mean, well, right now, it's allowed in C2 and industrial, right? I think it's special permanency to industrial, I think is the current, plus there's basically, you can't be within a certain number of feet from certain institutions, educational, religious, so. Right, that shouldn't be carried through. So yeah, I would say no, it's not. It won't be in the Salem Street District.
[Zac Bears]: But yeah, it shouldn't be.
[Zac Bears]: That was C1, so it was just probably carried over because... Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I think to the larger point, I just wanted to go through the process from this point forward. So assuming that the committee votes to refer out a proposal tonight, that would appear on the regular agenda for our next regular meeting. And I just want you guys to correct me if I'm wrong at any point. That would be referred to the Community Development Board, and the Community Development Board would hold a public hearing where further public comment could be taken. And then that would come back to the city council for a public hearing after a recommendations are made by the community development board, at which point it would require a further vote of the council to amend the zoning ordinance. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Right. So there's two more public hearings after tonight. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to build off a couple of things. I think too, there was the granular analysis that was done, but also, you know, we're not going, when you look at the apartment one in the commercial districts, the parcel boundaries actually aren't that out of bounds. It's just like the dimensional and the use requirements are kind of nuts. So it seems to me that by and large, that existing delineation was also used partly to outline some of the how far back things go. Of course, with some differences when you have that large apartment building on Paris Street, I think that, you know, was not in that zone. But in any case, I think the bigger question and the thought actually brings us all the way back to the beginning of the meeting. When we talk about walkability and accessibility and placemaking and streetscape. this is one piece of the implementation of the comprehensive plan. We're implementing land use and zoning policy. Emily and others have spoken to how incentive zoning and other elements here, and I'm also going to hopefully say in the future that site plan review processes and other things when things actually, you know, when this zoning actually turns into proposals and turns into construction of new buildings. That is where the rubber will meet the road to a large extent of actually improving the streetscape, getting a large new, say someone does want to put a few parcels together and build something big, not saying that that's what we want all over the place here, but they may need to give more back to the community to improve a stretch of the street. And so in addition to the traffic commission and all the other things that we want to do, a piece of this through the incentive zoning and through site plan review and through just the general transformation and goal that we want to see here over a long period of time, that is what will help us to make this a safer, more accessible, more walkable street. So when we see the implementation of the comprehensive plan recommendations, happening piecemeal because it has to happen piecemeal because we're just focused on the zoning piece right now it doesn't mean it's not that it's not factoring in these other questions around what it means to improve the street and actually this being an emanation or an iteration or an implementation of the comprehensive plan is an important thing to remind ourselves of because we can go back to the comprehensive plan and say, okay, one piece of creating these walkable vibrant neighborhoods is zoning. Another piece is something we may need to be talking about in our traffic commission or be talking about in another sense here in the community. So I just think that's important to note too. There's a great implementation table at the back of that comprehensive plan that is kind of its own. I mean, I can't even think of the word to describe it, but it's intense and this is a piece of that implementation. So I hope we can keep having the discussions and especially have the discussions when we have specific projects that want to be built coming after the establishing of the new zoning ordinance. I think there is that comprehensive holistic approach, and it just doesn't always get implemented all at the same time. And we're implementing different pieces of the comprehensive plan through different processes, and this is just one of them. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Tseng. Just wanted to thank the Collins Center representatives for being there in person. Apologies that I can't join you there tonight. I'm really excited to hear from the Collins Center what the next steps are for the council to take action on the proposals and the framework of the Charter Study Committee. I know that we haven't received that yet, so we won't be discussing their proposals and specifics, but more of what the timeline will look like in the new year for us to consider that. And, you know, I have a few questions after we hear from them, but in general, I'm excited to work with my colleagues on this committee to consider, you know, any amendments to the proposals from the study committee. And then my personal preference, I think, would be to hopefully report something out by the end of the spring to put on the ballot in November that would go. And then if the voters were to approve it, it would go into effect after the 2027 or for the 2027 election. So still a ways away from this going into effect, but really excited and hopeful and looking forward to working with my colleagues over the next few months on finalizing a proposal and getting that before the voters. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, you answered one of my questions around the referendum. My second question is, what is the mechanism that we use for the referendum? Is it technically that the council is placing a non-binding ballot question on the ballot, or is there another mechanism of mass general law that we're using in this case to place a referendum on the ballot?
[Zac Bears]: And is that a bind? And so then essentially the language of that bind.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to take advantage of your experience. on any tips and tricks around the legislative process. I know sometimes things can get hung up. Are there any other strategies and approaches that you can suggest? I was thinking, would it be helpful to invite our delegation to a council meeting where they can see us report it out or come to a committee meeting and ask questions in advance? Just any tips and tricks to move this through the legislature would be much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: If I could follow up, Chair Singh.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Along those lines, would it be possible for us as a committee, as we move through different pieces of the proposed charter and different portions of that, to consult with you on how far those proposals may be straying from a standard or something the legislature is more familiar with?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to say that's the second compliment this council has received from the Collins Center in as many years on our diligence. So we appreciate that. But I just wanted to also ask, is there any know, maybe I'll leave this for a more specific session, but I just wanted to thank you guys again for being here, for answering our questions, moving through the process, and I really look forward to working with you as we review the proposal of the Charter Study Committee and get to an agreement with the mayor. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to move to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Everybody's good. Sarah's good. You good? 23rd regular meeting, Medford City Council, December 3rd, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming is absent.
[Zac Bears]: Present, six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Thank you. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24496 offered by Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we acknowledge and celebrate the Medford High School varsity rowing team on their recent achievement of being crowned state champions at the Massachusetts Public School Rowing Association. We congratulate all members and coaches of the rowing team for their hard work, teamwork, and impressive achievement. I will go to Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor say, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. A long, long time ago, I was on the crew team for a season. Councilor Scarpelli was like a freshman on the school committee at the time. But I was much better on the ERG machine than I was on the water. I caught a lot of crabs. But yeah, I mean, it's just amazing to see how far the program has come. We were on the Malden River running out of that gentle giant tent and it was really new at the time. And it's just really great to see what you've accomplished. So thank you so much for being here. Parents, students, coaches, we're really, really excited to celebrate you. And I know this is your second night in this room in a row. So we'll get you out of here real soon. Thank you so much for being here. Open it up, if anyone from the team wants to say anything, you're welcome to come to the podium and say something if you want, share your story.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. All right, if there's no further discussion, we'd love to take a photo with you. Feel free to come up and fill in the center of the chamber here. If you can make it around, we've got a lot of stuff in here. Is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: We need to approve this first.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the resolution by Council, Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take resolutions under suspension by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. So you have three resolutions under suspension tonight. Resolution one offered by the president, vice president, Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved by the city council that we congratulate the Medford Mustang football team on beating Malden in the Thanksgiving game and winning the first GBL championship for the city since 1985. Any discussion on that item? All right, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And our next resolution is about the marching band. So we'll get to talk about them too. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Yeah, and I was hoping we'll reach out, we'll figure out if it's next meeting or maybe in January, which which one we can get people here for but I also just wanted to. really appreciate what the program means year round for students and keeping them engaged in the community and involved, not just in football activities, but community activities, community service, and academic success. It really is something that not just the football program, the crew team, the band, every program that we have in our city, gives a young person an opportunity to be more involved in their community, or maybe helps make sure they stay involved in their community and stay on track and I think that that is really the great benefit of the vibrant. activities that we have arts, sports, music, all of it. And also, I do want to ask Coach Curley, how he's going to replace the GBL MVP and I think now all time Mustang football scoring leader and Justin Marino, it's pretty impressive. So, you know, we can have a little sports fun too. It's got a brother in the fifth grade. It's a lot of pressure. But yeah. All right. Any further discussion on this motion as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to invite representatives from the team or the full team if they can all make it to a future meeting? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve as amended seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. second resolution under suspension, be it resolved that we celebrate and congratulate our Medford Mustang marching band on their NESBA championship. And we'll say that that's from Councilor Lazzaro Callahan. And just wanted to introduce that our marching band also has seen, I was in the marching band and I sat through I think four consecutive four or five, I think it might've been there even longer than that, consecutive Thanksgiving losses, but it was still awesome. The program was still doing community work. Cheer Squad was doing great and we were doing well, but it was at a time, Councilor Scarpelli knows we've talked about it, of cuts where we lost our marching director. We had one person doing the band. And we've seen this really vibrant resurgence over the last 10 years. For better, I mean, thankfully from, but from the parents and from private fundraising to support the band as someone who thinks that it would be great to have the public funds back in those programs that that. All that extra work doesn't go unnoticed, even though I don't think that needs to happen and I think it can be helpful. I'd love to see more support but our band has really seen that resurgence to in recent years winning multiple NSBA championships. And, you know, my senior year we didn't have we didn't march. You know that that's how bad it had gotten we had a field show but we stood in place and we performed it or we performed it from the stands and now you have a color guard, and you have percussion and you have electronically amplified instruments and all these things and new uniforms, all of these things that we didn't have. Yeah, and they're doing the tree and wreath sale to support the Medford Mustang Marching Band as well. So thanks to everyone for letting me go on first on this one, but it is a real passion of mine. I want to celebrate them too and hope that someone will amend to invite them as well. I'm going to go to Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm gonna go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And I do just want to note part of question eight was about trying to expand access to these programs, especially for kids who are taking the vocational programs, supporting coaches and trying to get their salaries up as part of negotiations and investing in not just the core academics, but the access to programs like our football team and our marching band and our crew team and others. And that is a priority, you know, I think we've all talked about just what Councilor Lazzaro said reminded me, it's important to invest in all of that. That's something that we're going to be, well, the school committee is going to be doing over the next several months as they work on their budget. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none on the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan on the paper as amended by Councilor Tseng to invite our marching band to a future meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. On the third paper under suspension, we did receive from the mayor a donation acceptance. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under general law, chapter 44, section 53A, a donation by Andrew P. Castagnetti of $100 and zero cents to be used to install lights on the Mystic River footbridge in memory of Lawrence Larry Lepore, our dearly departed city messenger. Is there any further discussion on that item? On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of November 12th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find those records? Oh, sorry. Councilor Collins found them in order and moves for approval. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the records of the meeting of November 19th, 2024, passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 19-070 offered by Council President Bears, Committee of the Whole report, November 20th, 2024, report to follow. This was, we took back up the tree ordinances. There are three parts of that ordinance, a tree committee ordinance, a public tree ordinance, and a private tree ordinance. Tree committee and public tree ordinance are going to, there's going to be a meeting with city staff and advocates and some members of the council to discuss further that ordinance. Private tree ordinance is being reviewed by the zoning team since it's a zoning ordinance. So that's probably going to either get incorporated into our zoning updates project or at least be aligned with that project. Any discussion on the report. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, councilor Scarpelli. Is there a motion to approve the committee report? So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-502 offered by Vice President Collins. Be it resolved that the Public Health and Community Safety Committee meet to discuss technical amendments to the Community Control over Public Surveillance Ordinance. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion to refer this paper 24502 for discussion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, all those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Hearings 24-490 offered by the City Council public hearing proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94. I'm now declaring the public hearing open. This is a hearing notice regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. We have not received the recommendations of the Community Development Board yet. So general practice is that we would continue this public hearing to a date certain our next regular meeting of December 17th. And at that point, we can review the recommendations of the Community Development Board regarding the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, is there anyone who'd like to speak in the public hearing right now? Seeing none, is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to continue the public hearing to the date certain, December 17th regular meeting. That's the right date, right? That is, yes. That will need a roll call vote. So on the motion of vice-president Collins, seconded by, seconded by councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six present, one absent. The motion passes and the public hearing has continued to our December 17th regular meeting. petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 24-504, petition for a common victualer's license, Medford Donuts Cafe, Inc. We have here on record business certificate, petition, fire department sign-off, building department sign-off, health department treasurer, state tax number, workers' compensation form, letter of compliance, and traffic impact. And I will turn this over to Councilor Scarpelli. We do have the petitioner on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I am attempting to unmute the petitioner. Mr. Silva, I'm gonna click a button and then something should pop up on your screen that'll allow you to speak. I can see you, but I can't unmute you. You have to unmute yourself when I ask. Are you seeing a pop-up on your screen? If you could give me a thumbs up or down if you see it when I press this button. So if you click the unmute button on that pop-up, that should allow you to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Do the councilors have any other questions on this item? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, and we can send any questions through the clerk to the petitioner if needed. Is there a second on the motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item? Oh boy. Folks don't know City Hall was closed to most of today, at least till noon, because the heat was not working. So another building that needs some TLC for sure.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe a dead exclusion. On the motion, all in favor, or do you want a roll call? We don't have to? Okay, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the common fixture license is approved. Thank you. Sorry, we couldn't hear from you. 24505 petition for a common victor's license for Bunn's House. We have the petition here, business certificate fee, approval from fire department, building department, health department, treasurer, state tax ID, worker's compensation form, a letter of compliance and police and traffic. And it looks like we also have counsel for the applicant, Mr. Chin on Zoom perhaps, or I saw you come on video. I can ask you to unmute if there's anything you'd like to add, and then I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Hello, Councilor. How are you?
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, I just want to say good luck, congratulations, and we are excited to have you filling the, you know, Chili Garden's been a big community anchor, so we look forward to having you in there and doing your business. So congratulations on the motion to approve. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24-503 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, President Bears, and Vice President Collins. Let me get the full language here. Whereas speed is one of the most important factors in traffic safety and crashes that occur at lower speeds cause less injury. And whereas a pedestrian hit by a car traveling 40 miles per hour has a one in 10 chance of surviving a crash, while a pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour has a nine in 10 chance of surviving. And whereas Medford has set a citywide speed limit of 25 miles per hour on city controlled streets. and whereas Medford has a high proportion of state-controlled roads, including Mystic Valley and Alewife Brook Parkways, Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, and High Street, Route 60, which are Medford's busiest thoroughfares, connecting Medford, the surrounding towns, and I-93, and passing through residential and commercial areas, impacting the safety of people walking, cycling, taking transit, and driving to school, work, parks, grocery stores, natural spaces, and city squares. excuse me, and whereas Massachusetts general law chapter 90 section 18 allows city councils to petition state agencies to modify the speed limit on a state highway within their geographic boundaries. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford city council that we respect the request and recommend that the Massachusetts department of conservation and recreation, DCR and Massachusetts department of transportation, MassDOT set the speed limit on route 16, route 28, route 38 and route 60 in Medford at 25 miles per hour. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Callahan and then Vice President Collins. But just before I do that, it might be worth the amendment being, saying Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, Route 60, and any other streets or highways controlled by state agencies, something like that as an amendment, just to be a catch-all.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, because I off the top of my head I'm thinking of South Border Road, Elm Street, Highland Avenue.
[Zac Bears]: And there's a couple of other state, there's a Valley Parkway that's not part of Route 16 by the lakes. I mean, Someone said that I think Medford has the second highest proportion of state-controlled roads after Boston, which is pretty wild, but we do have a lot. And 38 is partially city, partially state. I think 60 is the only one that's all under city control. So I think a catch-all amendment might be worth.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. All right. I'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly, and I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Yeah, as someone who grew up on a state road, Fells Bay West, but has spent many years looking out my driver's side mirror or looking left and right across the street, worried that someone's going to come whipping down Fells Bay West in the one-way section at 45 miles an hour. And they have taken out two of our cars and a tree in that time. And luckily, no people, but that's probably only because there's no crosswalks. And the only thing To our West is 93. There's other parts that are even much more dangerous. I'm a huge supporter of this resolution. I'm also directly experienced what it's like to lose someone in another community, not in Medford to traffic violence so Yeah, it's just important to me. And I have here a suggested amendment in the last sentence, set the speed limit on any street, highway, or portion of a street or highway controlled by a state agency, including but not limited to Route 16, Route 28, Route 38, Route 60, South Border Road, Elm Street, and Highland Ave in Medford at 25 miles per hour. Sound good? You'll make that amendment? I wrote it down. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the resolution as amended, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public? Yes. Name and address for the record, please, and you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellery. And I'd start with less drag racing myself. If we have anyone else who'd like to speak in person, you can come to the podium or on Zoom, raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. I will unmute you, Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, and then we'll go back to the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, do you want to speak on this item? It may have been an error in hand. Oh, we got him. All right. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe state police enforces speed on the state-controlled roads.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go to Martha at the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Emily Stein from the Safe Roads Alliance. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Emily, and please reach out and let us know, Ellery, to anyone in the city, how we can support further efforts for regional and state coordination on road safety. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, I will go to the public. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I did want to just note enforcement is something that we need more of. I mean, it's not a state-controlled road, but I was on Winthrop Street coming down the hill from Tufts six weeks ago, and I'm doing 20, maybe 25, but 20 going down to 15 to go over the raised crosswalk in front of the church. Guy whips around me 45 miles an hour, left lane, opposite lane, oncoming traffic, and he's not all the way back into the right lane until Goldilocks. I mean, and you had people trying to cross at West Street, trying to cross up a little further at Summer Street. It was just awful to see. And I, of course, immediately pulled over on South Street and called the chief because I had the license plate number. And he says, we can't do anything but pull the plate, call them, and say, hey, you can't do that. But I can't enforce the law. So we need more enforcement. that, you know, I used to have some more concerns about the safe traffic cameras that I do now, given how people have been driving. So with that, any further discussion on this item or public participation will go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I think, you know, there's several processes to be on the lookout for as well. Wellington Circle redesign, the Mystic Avenue, Main Street, Medford Square corridor design process, which is ongoing, and High Street and Mystic Valley Parkway at the Arlington border as well. I know there's designs for shrinking those rotaries. the lane width at those rotaries as well. And those are some really major projects that we should all be paying attention to, um, in terms of design and making sure that they're gonna keep us safe. So seeing no further discussion on the motion of Councilors are seconded by Council Vice President Collins as amended by Councilors are all those in favor. Opposed? Motion passes. Last thing we have on the agenda, public participation. If you have public participation on any item that was not otherwise on the agenda, you can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. And I will go to Mr. Fiore, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's a complicated question. Actually, there are state routes like Route 60 that are city controlled. Most of High Street and Salem Street is city controlled. So I believe Medford does repairs on those the state controlled portions of state road state routes or non state routes, the agency. that controls them is responsible. So, for example, I lived on Fells Way West. Our snow shoveling and snow removal, that's DCR region, I can't remember the region number, but it's the region that's up at Spot Pond, the headquarters there. So Medford snow shoveling and street sweeping rules don't apply to that section of Fells Way West, nor does maintenance or redesign. It's actually also one of the reasons that Main Street and Mystic Ave and Medford Square, that intersection design is so complicated, a portion of the streets are city controlled, a portion of the streets are DCR, and a portion of the streets are MassDOT. So you had to get all three of those groups together to approve design. And probably when it's done, you'll have different agencies maintaining different parts of that intersection. That's my general understanding of how it works. It's probably even more specific stuff but for example, if you're going up fells way west towards stone them, or you can turn right onto Elm Street. They put a paint bump out to change the angle of the curve because it was really steep and people were just whipping right up Elm. but it was just paint. I remember talking with director Blake about putting bollards out to further try to make people actually follow the new curve. And DCR said that they wouldn't do it. They didn't have the staff to maintain the bollards and Todd and DPW offered to do it ourselves. And they said, we won't let you do that. So there's jurisdictional questions that create some really frustrating issues.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, cyclists on that street too. I mean, I would have a really, I mean, it seems like a great place to go on a bike ride and then you're there.
[Zac Bears]: There's a couple larger conversations DCR at the state level. It used to be even more ridiculous how many agencies controlled different parkways and roadways, and they were regionalized. And you had the old MDC and different regional district commissions. And I won't go into it, but that all got merged into DCR. But it still doesn't make a ton of sense to have DCR maintaining all of these roads. MassDOT should probably be doing it. It should be centralized. DCR is deeply underfunded. I think, yeah, I could go into that forever. But that's another piece of the problem with the enforcement on, You know, fells by going up towards stone or south border road. Snow shoveling, I mean it was ridiculous you know they won't even put up bollards to because they're like what if someone we don't have the staff capacity to put them back up if they get knocked down, so that was their justification so that that funding issue with DC ours and there's a problem to that needs to get solved. But I appreciate the comment. And the one other thing is that the Chapter 90 money that we get, which is basically the only money most cities use for street maintenance, is based on just the proportion of the public ways that are in the city control. So the state-controlled roads are out of it. The private ways are out of it.
[Zac Bears]: And that formula is also deeply underfunded, but we get an even shorter end of the stick because we have such a smaller proportion of the mileage in the city is actually controlled by the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you very much. You got it. Thank you. Any further public participation, either in person or on Zoom? We have Steve Schnapp. Steve, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'll have to check my email. We did receive a report for quarter one. Yeah, I think it was within the last two weeks or maybe early November. It would be incumbent on a councillor to move that item from unfinished business to take it up from the table for us to discuss it. So if councillors want to do that, they're free to do so at any time. And we do have a report that we got from the administration on fiscal 25 quarter one finances. And I will work on the acronym thing. Thanks, Steve. All right, any further discussion by members of the council? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to say that I think this is a really great start to this proposal. I appreciate its responsiveness to the city's comprehensive plan and the thousands of residents who participated in that process. And I also just appreciate the thoughtful presentation from Innes Associates. I think what we're looking at is an enhancement to the area to make it what we want it to be, which is more walkable, bring commercial in, and just make it a place for the neighborhood instead of just the cut through that many people experience it as now. I just really want to note the comment about the sprinkling of gas stations. You know, not only is that from like a design perspective and an experience perspective, not great, but we've had a lot of problems with those stations over the years as a community being not great neighbors. So that's something to note. And we're also going to see this become high frequency transit corridor with the T96 coming soon every 15 minutes. And this is going to, I think, really respond to that and make this a really improve some of the outstanding issues with the existing zoning. I want to thank Innes Associates for noting the residential blocks remaining residential, keeping historic buildings, as well as noting like the serious loopholes in the existing zoning that would allow like a 12-story hotel right now, which I think None of us, nobody wants that here. So correcting this to match more of the community character and identity while also enhancing it in exactly the ways that we want it to was the goal of the comprehensive plan. And that seems to be the content of this draft. So I look forward to discussing this next week. Also just want to thank the chair for working with the administration on the outreach plan, both for this meeting and for the meetings in the upcoming six month period. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanted to note also that when we redid the zoning with Mark Hrabowski, probably most of these discussions were two terms ago. Supreme Court decisions don't allow like there were like family restrictions on renting units. Those are illegal and were removed like for three years ago. So those aren't in the zoning anymore. And I just also wanted to know, in terms of next steps on this proposal. Yes, we'll be coming back next week and having the meeting here. Then this will be referred to a council meeting to then be referred to a community development board meeting to then be referred back to a final council meeting. So there will be three public hearings after the public meeting next week, in addition to the meeting next week, although next week is a great opportunity for discussion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I am here, how are you guys?
[Zac Bears]: Good, good. We are getting our full CO, I believe today or tomorrow. I got the email from Scott last night, so just an update there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so it's the event at City Hall. We got asked to be the salesman of beer and wine. We're gonna set up two portable bars, just beer and wine. We're gonna have a nice, really, offering of IPAs and local craft beer. It's for the mayor and, let's see right here, I'm sorry, it's the winter extravaganza from 4.30 to 6.30 on December 4th.
[Zac Bears]: We were planning on doing just beer and wine, but I was gonna ask you guys if you prefer we do everything or stick to the beer and wine.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, that's fine. Beer and wine is what we're buying.
[Zac Bears]: Nope, absolutely. I hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council special meeting November 26 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. Hearings 24-501 submitted by the Board of Assessors. Allocation of the fiscal 2025 property tax. Let me read the legal notice real quick. Legal notice, notice of a public hearing, City of Medford, the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alton Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, at 7 p.m. A link to this hearing will be posted no later than Friday, November 22, 2024. The purpose of this hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the purpose of allocation of the FY 2025 property tax. One, to determine the residential factor for FY25. Two, selecting an open space discount. Three, selecting a residential exemption. Four, selecting a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids and accommodations. Order of the Redford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. And I will turn it over to our assessor, Mr. Costigan.
[Zac Bears]: Ted, we also have on the agenda the open space discount. Do we need to vote on that?
[Zac Bears]: But the recommendation would be to not- To not vote.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to-
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Ted, just a couple of quick questions. On this new growth here on the chart, this is new construction.
[Zac Bears]: That'd be accurate. This year, how much of it was like a condo conversion or an exempt building coming on versus just new building or major renovations?
[Zac Bears]: OK, yeah. And are we getting better at capturing that or what's changing to drive the new growth numbers higher?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, just one more question on the residential exemption. The break even seemed a lot higher this year. I think last time we talked it was in the high 700s, low 800s. Is that just a major change in valuations or what happened there?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And I know you gave us the average single family value was 804. Do you have the median?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And I just say that because I think it would be valuable in the future if we could get figures on the number of residential parcels that fall below the break-even point and then those that fall above.
[Zac Bears]: Because I think the council has expressed interest in the residential exemption and would want to have those discussions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'll go to Councilor Tseng then Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, one second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think you'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Ted, just I think to clarify the point, If we were planning for the residential exemption, the tax rate that you would have submitted tonight would have been different.
[Zac Bears]: It would have been higher. Exactly. And the issue being if we pass this tax rate, Essentially, let's say 10,000 people apply for 35% exemptions if that's what we pass. We would need to have tens of millions of dollars in the overlay account to pay back those exemptions. But we wouldn't have raised that because the tax rate would be set based on not having that exemption, essentially.
[Zac Bears]: They don't allow us to estimate.
[Zac Bears]: So if you would open up applications in June, we receive 9,000, you could say we expect this, that would, and then, or?
[Zac Bears]: And so just again, to clarify, there'd be a separate vote. This would not be the vote to establish the exemption? This would be?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead, Jared.
[Zac Bears]: The condo is 23. I'm just putting this in the calculator.
[Zac Bears]: The two family 104s are 24%. The three-family 105s are 3%, 2.9%. In the denominator, you're using 16.025. 16.025, yeah. That would be accurate.
[Zac Bears]: number of parcels over that three families, so four and up is only 116, so it's only 0.01. It's 0.007, so what, 0.7?
[Zac Bears]: Right, it's parcels, not units, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think units would be useful. I think even also like valuation, right? It's 116 parcels, but it's probably 20, $30 million of valuation in that 116.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. So we have, let's do this as a B paper and we can combine this. So we have a B paper from Councilor Callahan, 2.1 request legal procedure to adopt residential exemption from KP law. And then your second part of it is.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I think that if we could add in the number of units above or number of parcels above and below the break even.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli, I think.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on either the B paper or the main paper? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Is there anyone who would like to speak in person or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Okay. So name and address for the record, please. And you can talk on any of the items.
[Zac Bears]: So it's on the council portal.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So first, we'll take the B paper by Councilor Callahan to request. We'll go to Andy when we take, we're going to have a bunch of motions here. So Yeah, we're gonna have five votes so, and you can talk on like the third one, wherever we end up. We have a B paper from Councilor Callahan to request the legal procedure to adopt residential exemption from KP law and also to request from the assessor's office. The percentage of units and valuation across the residential classes. And also I think as amended, if you would just include the number of residential units or parcels above and below the breakeven point for the exemption. So we have that motion from Councilor Callahan, seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. On the B paper, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The B paper is adopted. We have four votes ahead of us. First, we had the motion from Councilor Collins to adopt the 175% shift, which I think would be a motion to adopt a minimum residential factor of 0.9072. Is that correct? Maximum or minimum? Got it. Motion to drop the lowest possible residential factor for fiscal 25. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adopt the lowest possible residential factor for fiscal 25 seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. And we'll go next. We'll do the open space discount, even though we don't have to, but we have in the past, so we'll do it for now. Is there a motion to not adopt an open space discount?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. On the motion to not adopt an open space discount. So voting yes means we would not adopt. By Councilor Tseng, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. On the residential exemption, is there a motion? on the motion to not adopt the residential exemption by Councilor Tseng second would be to not adopt. Seconded by Councilor Collins. We will go to public participation. Mr. Castagnetti name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti, and we'll share those around.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the public or Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: I just want to really quickly, Andy, I saw Mr. Costigan. You got to take over the microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Mr. Cassidy, I want to go to Mr. Fiore first.
[Zac Bears]: You can make a comment to the chair, but you can't. Through the chair, I say. Sure. It's not a debate.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Sure. I'd like to keep it short.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Mr. Fiore. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if the assistant assessor, if you want to speak to it or Ted's going to come back. It looks like he's might be coming back right now. But if you want to go for it, Jared.
[Zac Bears]: I think that would be helpful for future discussions. And just to add on to the context of your point, The issue is also that you're making an assumption of like how many people are going to take it. And the point is the break even point has to be set based on that assumption to keep the levy even. Right. So you're setting a new tax rate to raise the same amount of money, but you're basing that on the assumption of how what percentage of residential classes will not change.
[Zac Bears]: And under this system, you may, let's say you have a, and this is just, I wanna clarify this too, like say you're in a three-family unit, one of the units is owner-occupied, the other two are not, would that whole structure qualify for an owner occupancy? So you basically would have people, even if they, let's say that three-family is worth 1.2 million, it's over the break-even point, they would have to apply for the owner-occupied exemption their taxes are still gonna go up even though they'll qualify for the exemption essentially, right? But it'll just go up less than if they didn't get the exemption at all. And I'm not saying that to make, I mean, it's a specific case. Adam has it, yeah. Okay, thank you. Does that answer your question, Gaston?
[Zac Bears]: And it's different across the different property classes too, right? Are you mostly just assuming single family and condo?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion to not adopt a residential exemption by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Seeing none in person or on Zoom, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. On the small commercial exemption, is there a motion? On the motion to not adopt the small commercial exemption by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative. Motion passes. So we will adopt the maximum or the minimum residential factor for the maximum shift. No open space discount, no residential exemption and no small commercial exemption. Any further discussion on this item. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng seconded by Council is our Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Hi everyone. Thank you. to the chair and the Community Development Board. I want to thank residents for their feedback and concerns, some of which we have heard as city councilors as well, and I've been listening tonight. I just want to speak mostly to Tufts at this point, given what we know about the law. A lot of what we've been advocating for from the city council perspective and state legislators exist because we don't feel that there's a fair balance of power between the city and the residents and Dover exempt institutions like Tufts and other institutions in the education and health space. And I really want to encourage Tufts to use this as an opportunity to build some of that connection. I see a lot of the benefits here. The housing shortage is real. We want more students on campus housed at Tufts, but I think Tufts could use this as an opportunity to build some connection, even though they're not legally required to, by accepting a voluntary site plan review beyond just the Dover site plan review. looking at a pilot payment similar to the Cummings Center, an additional pilot beyond what is provided to the city, more concretely committing to working with the building trades and other union contractors to ensure fair labor on the project. And I also want to just thank the CD board for their work on this and hopefully given the difficult legal conditions that exist there can be additional public realm improvements on traffic safety and trees on Boston Avenue as well as light and sound mitigation. But again I just think this is an You know, there's a reason why we're filing the institutional master plan bill. There's a reason why I support pilot bills at the State House. And I think it's because we just see how limited municipalities are with the Dover Amendment and the exemptions given to our large nonprofit educational and health care institutions. So I'm asking Tufts to use this as an opportunity to work differently and maybe go beyond just what they're required to do. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, through the chair. I just wanted to give a little more context on a couple of things. That big trapezoidal pink lot is the Walnut Street Center now, and formerly Russo Marine. So that's kind of where the commercial would start. And then that small purple right next to it, that's kind of where the current Dunkin' Donuts, Sarah's Chicken Pie, the thing between Alexander and Bonner is. Then the street that's going in Hicks Ave that goes from the pink into the blue at the end where that intersects with Mystic Ave, that's Avellino's there. You'd be trying to take those paint shops and the auto shops that are further back along Hicks Ave and instead of having that abutting Exchange Street and abutting the Missittuck School in Columbus Park, trying to have that be a little bit more of a connected area. I just wanted to provide also 1 more piece of context on the Northwestern end. If you look, I really think Emily and Paula hit the look forward piece. Great. Something that was really important to just 2 other pieces to note is the mass dot. A redesign of the Medford square, main street, mystic Avenue intersection to be signalized. And how that whole area is such an essential transparent transit connector for multimodal transit, um, from an East West perspective. You know, we're still going to have a lot of lanes of traffic there, but the idea is to reduce speeds to reduce the constant throughput and the dangers there. Because it is basically the 1 place that you can cross East to West and North South across the river. Eventually on the 16. Uh, overpass, you're going to have a. two-way bike lane that's connecting essentially across that whole 16 connector. Then the other piece where we really wanted to put thought in is what were those street layouts originally designed for? Because this is one of the parts of the city where the auto culture really has demolished the original intent of the street layout. If you look at some really old photos, there were really gorgeous buildings multi-story, three-story brick, very similar to Bigelow in the square at the triangle intersection of Mystic and Main. That's now the mobile gas station, right? And with the change in the intersection, I think there's a real and with just the change in the dynamic of auto centric industry and where we're going with development. I think there's a huge opportunity in that Northwest corner. To restitch that neighborhood together and try to research it together with Medford square. While also working through this east, west, north, south, like connectivity area for multimodal transit and pedestrian bike access. So that was really the thinking of the council. It was definitely a look forward. But also a look back to what was there before all the body shops and gas stations where it really was a. one of the city's oldest residential neighborhoods with interesting mixed use buildings and residential structures. So it'd be great to try to restore what I consider to be an error of planning of the 50s and 60s to something better.
[Zac Bears]: City Council and Committee of the Whole, November 20 2024 Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I present to absence meeting is called to order. Action Discussions item 19-070. This is by Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan on the Tree Ordinance. We have three drafts that we've been working on for quite a while as evidenced by the 19-070. That stands for 2019. So we have a public updates to the public tree ordinance in the city ordinance is currently the discussion of the creation of a tree committee and the proposed private tree ordinance, which would be relative to zoning. We are joined today by our building commissioner, our DPW commissioner, representative of Trees Medford. And I think I'm gonna turn it over to Councilor Callahan to talk through how we're going to move through this today, Councilor Callahan. Oh, and before I said I do have to, I will read, or if trees meant for folks want to read their letter into the record. At some point later in the meeting I will read into the record, the letter from trees Medford, and the letter that we received from former Councilor. Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I'm happy to read the letter, unless one of you guys wanna read the letter.
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. And then you'll share, after that, you'll share your screen. Do you want to read the, that'd be great. Yeah. You wrote it. So I feel like you'll have a better feel on it than I do.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Amanda. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So I believe that the red indicates a comment that preexisted. And this is the blue indicates changes from the KP law draft to the draft submitted by the trees, Medford folks. So blue is new and black is something that was submitted by KP for the October 11th, 2023 meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So the blue is all the stuff that you added.
[Zac Bears]: We just wanted to be able to see the difference between what you guys did and the KP law. So the blue stuff is everything that you've added. And then it should also show lined removals as well.
[Zac Bears]: Generally, we go through section by section. You can kind of note the changes, and then we can pause for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I think summarizing the changes is generally what I like to do, but it's however you want to handle it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm happy to do it, too. I've done it a few times, if you want.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, totally. So it looks like here we have in the purpose section, just looks like there's an edit to quality of the city's environment. And then it looks like there's a quote or kind of a section, a paragraph added. to summarize some changes under Mass General Law chapter 40A or authority provided under General Law 40A. I think we should talk, we can talk about that further, but just that might, we might want to constrain that paragraph to the private ordinance since that's the one that's going to be a zoning ordinance, but we can talk about that. And I'm interested to hear from building commissioner and the DPW commissioner. Under the appointments section, we have the committee shall consist of five Medford residents and up to 10 members total, subject to confirmation by the Council and added two youth members. It looks like a change from the last draft. One member demonstrating expertise in the fields of urban forestry or landscape design. Residency not required if requisite expertise is demonstrated. And then there's just some minor changes to the initial terms, a few more minor changes to duties, but here under section 3A, it looks like there would be a differentiation with the creation of something called the landmark tree hearing. Moving forward, it looks like some additional typographic and other language additions here in sections B, through I, I'm not seeing anything super major. Section J here. I'm just going to pull up my draft because I'm not seeing what was removed. It looks like a majority of this question under the duties has remained pretty consistent from the initial draft or from the draft from October 11, 2023 to now. And I think that generally summarizes the changes. I don't know if Amanda, if you want to talk any more about what changed between the two drafts. Okay. Yeah. So it looks like the main differences are around the composition of the trade committee and some questions around youth membership and residency. At this point, We could recognize either the DPW commissioner or the building commissioner if you have any comments on the tree committee ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Commissioner McGivern. Yeah, and I know that Robin Stein comment on the duties at this section three will be relatively dependent on what actually happens with that public tree ordinance changes as well.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And I think as Attorney Stein noted, you know, we're subject to the Chapter 87 mass general laws around those authorities. And we can't, yeah, we just can't give away, like the Traffic Commission, for example, is actually defined by state law here, like the Medford Traffic Commission's authority. So just like tree wood. Yeah, exactly. And that's my just the kind of point I'm trying to push home. But yeah, it sounds like for the tree committee, generally, be mostly working with DPW, maybe some language tweaks would be needed around support and advice, but specifics, the public tree ordinance as we look at the amendments there is going to inform some of that for here for the tree committee as well. Excellent. All right. Thank you. So maybe we can move to, well, we can, do we have any more comments on the tree committee ordinance either in person here or on Zoom before we move on to the public? tree ordinance amendments. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none at this time. Great. Thanks. Thanks. All right. Let's move next to our public tree draft. If you wouldn't mind sharing that. Maybe I don't know. Maybe I can do it. Great. Do you want to go for it?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thank you. It's pretty, some pretty significant changes. So I'm wondering, Commissioner McGivern, what your thoughts are and where we might want to go from here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Yeah, I think we're going to need to have this track changes draft brought to you probably to KP as well. I think there's some comments from Attorney Stein around enforcement in here already, but I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Scarpelli, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli and appreciate your comments. I definitely think that a next step out of this meeting is going to be to refer these two relevant department heads. I think for the public tree ordinance going to the DPW, for the private tree ordinance going to both our building commissioner, as well as the, it's a zoning ordinance. So what its interfaces with the zoning updates project that we're working on, I think is going to be important. and that three committee ordinance is going to be relatively determinant based on where we land on this public ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and good luck. All right, thanks buddy. Great, so With that, do we want to take a look at the private ordinance then we can look at some motions or I'll go to you Councilor Kelly at first.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. First, Scott, do you see any engagement from your office on the public tree ordinance? OK. And Tim, do you think that you know, obviously your comments on this draft are gonna be incredibly important. Do you think that you could do some sort of kind of cost estimate as to what you think trying to fully implement this would look like? I don't know, or general estimate.
[Zac Bears]: great thank you yeah and I really think it's important at this point to just note I think there's two tracks generally here if the public ordinance public tree ordinance and the tree committee mostly assisting dpw with public trees and that's what the dpw then you have the private tree ordinance and that's going to be a zoning related related to the planning department our zoning project and likely enforced by the building department so I just think we should try to keep those in track. So if you wanted to move on a motion here on the public to refer this public tree ordinance draft with these track changes and the tree committee ordinance with these track changes to the DPW, I think that would make sense. We can get that cost estimate, right? So I think that'll be the motion for that. Let me know what you have, Mr. Clerk. And then, yeah, I guess it makes sense. We could come back for another meeting once we've heard some from Tim and then go to send this to KP and then have a final meeting, hopefully. So there'll be two more meetings on this before report out. And this, you know, yeah. They're going to Tim. And Aggie, DPW forestry, DPW commissioner and DPW forestry. However you want to handle that is obviously it's your department.
[Zac Bears]: Just you is fine. Great. So just the DPW commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. For comment and a cost estimate. Yep. and uh tim when do you think we could maybe do you think meeting in january might be possible i think that's fine okay yeah january maybe add to the council work to schedule a further committee of the whole in january i just don't want to let this drop for 11 months 12 months like we did last time Yeah, I'll go to them in a minute. Yes. Is there a second on that motion? Second by Councilor Tseng. Yep, I'm going to go to discussion. I'm going to go to Loretta on Zoom. Loretta, I'm going to unmute you. If you could just provide your name and address for the record, please. Oh, give me one second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Loretta. Any further comment? I will go to Lois. Lois, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It looked to me based on the draft, and anyone can feel free to quirk me here, that the tree committee would mainly be involved in supporting efforts around the public trees. Um, and I think a lot of this has to do with the, um, enforcement authority and the ability, like the city's ability to regulate these questions coming from different parts of Massachusetts general law, um, with the public, basically general law, chapter 87, regulating public trees. And then the zoning state zoning law, chapter 40, a being what's relevant to the private, uh, property trees on private property. Um, I'm trying to look here just in the duties of the tree committee advisory matters concerning Medford's trees. So this edit would bring some, I guess, some element of the private in here. I think we just have to figure out what legal authority there is for that. But I would think that the tree committee would generally be working mainly with the forestry department and the DPW. I'm not sure if any folks want to correct me, that's my reading of the intent.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the mayor would make appointments and the city council would confirm those appointments and then the committee would be staffed. the mayor would determine who would be staffing and supporting the committee's work.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Lois.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Commissioner McIvern. All right, is there any further discussion on the motion from Councilor Callahan? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative three absent, the motion passes. Maybe we can move into the private tree item. One second. There you go, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I will, I will appreciate the credit, but I was able to use technology. It took me like 15 minutes. So yeah, 10. I did it right here before we started. So, but I appreciate that you think I did more work than I did. I think just if I could comment really quickly, you know, I don't know, I don't know exactly where all of these came from. I'm guessing it's from the ordinances that you cited in the letter, some different pieces of different pieces. I do want to go to Scott and then maybe to Tim. But my general understanding is the tree warden generally isn't involved in the private sector regulatory realm and zoning enforcement is subject of the building department and code enforcement. So my suggestion is it might be worth sitting down outside of a public meeting with the building department, maybe making a decision not to include tree warden and DPW, and maybe that's a step forward. You can come up with something there, but I do want to give Scott a chance to talk before we move forward on anything. If you have anything to say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, commissioner. I appreciate it. I'm sorry for not recognizing you as commissioner. I'm going to just open it up to discussion. Members of the council about path forward here. Any thoughts? Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I'm gonna go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I think it would make sense to involve the planning office and the NS Associates team who is working on the zoning update in a meeting between, I guess, you or you and Councilor Collins, Commissioner Vandewalle, and some folks from PDS and NS to kind of work through this. I know Attorney Silverstein could provide some guidance around the law without necessarily having to come up with a draft, send it to KP, get KP comments back. but I think, yeah, I would suggest that that happened as kind of just a city meeting, a mini meeting of city staff. And then when you guys have been able to iron something out that can come back to us and maybe it's part of the zoning process, or maybe it's, you know, we keep, we probably want to keep considering these three papers together, but I'm not sure how it'll interface with the work that we're doing for the zoning. There's a pretty ambitious timeline and calendar there. So, That would be my suggestion. Any further discussion? Councilor Kelly?
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: By staff, you mean the building commissioner and the planning department?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by. Councilor Leming. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Any further discussion by members of the public? I'm just going to add in, come to the podium, yes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: The first motion was for the public and the tree committee.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? I have Kim on Zoom. Kim, I will recognize you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, yeah, I appreciate that comment. And I'm seeing a nod from Councilor Callahan, maybe that you could work with Councilor Collins and the other folks to entries meant for to invite someone. Great. Awesome. On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Any further discussion on this topic at this time? All right, I just wanna thank everybody for getting us re-centered with staff changes and everything else and council changes. I think we're in a good place now to move ahead. We have good next steps on each of the ordinances and hopefully we can come back in January for public trees and then we'll wait to hear back on the private tree from the group that's gonna be working on it on a timeline there, making sure it fits in with the zoning project. Any motions? on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Shane you good. Medford City Council 22nd regular meeting November 24, 2024 is called the order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Present, seven present, none absent, please rise to salute the flag. As a reminder, all votes will be roll call tonight because we have Vice President Collins on Zoom. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24496 offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli. This is a resolution to congratulate the Bedford High School varsity rowing team. They requested that they be taken later in the meeting. Is there a motion to table? On the motion to table by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion is tabled. Records, the records of the meeting of November 12th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. to the next meeting. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Reports of committees 2 4 0 3 3 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee November 13 2024 report to follow Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the motion to approve the committee report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none in the negative, the committee report is approved. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24499 offered by Vice President Collins and President Bears. This is the aforementioned amendment to the zoning ordinance for the Green Score for referral to the Community Development Board. The purpose of the Green Score is to provide flexibility in meeting environmental performance standards, promote attractive environmentally functional landscapes, strengthen climate adaptive goals established in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan released in 2022 by improving flood resilience, heat mitigation, storm infiltration, and water, air, and soil quality, And to offer a many free ecosystem services, including mitigation of pollution shade and energy savings recreational opportunities and enhance property values and quality of life. As this was discussed in planning and permitting committee right now, this will only apply if approved to the Mystic Avenue Corridor District, which is currently under consideration by the Community Development Board. And as further zoning amendments move through, the green score would be added. But also right now applies to, I'm sorry, construction of new principal buildings or major renovations in FEMA flood hazard layer zones or projects that require site plan review. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to refer to community development board seconded by councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes and the zoning amendment is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the mayor 24494 submitted by Mayor Brianna Lugo Kern Riverside Plaza P. A. R. C. Grant loan order and C. P. C. Appropriation approval request. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council. I'm excited to share that the city has been awarded $198,853 for the Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities Park Grant for the Riverside Plaza Improvements Project. The City's Community Preservation Committee is also recommending an appropriation of CPA funds in the amount of $144,250 for a total project cost of $343,103. The park grant requires that the City Council pass a resolution accepting the grant and acknowledging the restrictions to this space slash project for providing recreation purposes. The grant also requires that full funding for the projects be appropriated upon acceptance of the grant. The enclosed resolution addresses these requirements. The grant will then reimburse a $198,853 portion of the appropriation. In summary, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body adopt the enclosed resolution to accept the grant and authorize a loan order request of $198,853 for the project, which will be reimbursed by the park grant. Park grant requires a copy of certified vote sent to them by December 31st. and I hope these requests have been submitted with sufficient time for review. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. So we have the resolution language here. We do have a letter from KP Law indicating that the loan order is prepared and loan order is authorized and in the correct form, properly granting the treasurer with the approval of the mayor. the authority to issue the bonds for the city. And that has been reviewed by Bond Council. And we also have here a letter from the Community Preservation Committee requesting that we requesting and recommending that we approve the CPC appropriation. And I believe we have Amanda Centrella here as well as Teresa DuPont. So I will let Amanda present anything else that you'd like to present.
[Zac Bears]: So if you're interested, sure, we'll take a quick presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I think we need to make you a co host. Yes, please. Thank you. One second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have questions for Amanda, or do we want to hear from Teresa first? Teresa, is there anything you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We'll go to Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, anything else you'd like to add? Great. So we're going to take two votes here. First, we need to take a vote on the loan order and the resolution to accept the grant. That means three readings, and then we can vote on the community preservation committee appropriation request. So is there a motion on the loan order to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The loan order and acceptance of the park grant passes for first reading. On the CPC appropriation request? On the motion of councillors are to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, President Bears. Yes, seven affirmative no negative emotion. Thank you. All right. 24497 submitted my bear brain on go current ballot question seven and eight override supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2025 Medford public schools operating budget and the Department of Public Works. Dear President Bears and members of the city council in accordance with the vote of the city of Medford approving question seven and eight on November 5 2024 state election ballot. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following additional appropriations to the fiscal year 2025 men for public schools operating budget, and the Department of Public Works. and further rescind the city council's June 11th, 2024 vote to appropriate a one-time fund advance of ARPA funds that was provided to avoid severe budget cuts in the fiscal 25 MPS operating budget in the event that the override questions did not pass. These ARPA funds will now instead be used for items outlined in the city's capital improvement plan, such as, but not limited to, the purchase of a fire engine for the fire department and two hybrid police cruisers for the police department. for supplemental appropriation to below DPW and close as a comprehensive budget breakdown as with any budget is subject to adjustments. The city will provide a breakdown of funds spent on the DPW and through my role as chair of the school committee, I will work with my school committee colleagues and the MPS administration to ensure detailed reporting for all override funds expended by the Medford public schools as well. Supplemental Appropriation One, Medford Public Schools. It is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raise by taxation and appropriate the additional sum of $3 million to supplement the fiscal year 2025 Medford Public Schools operating budget for the purposes stated in question seven on the November 5th, 2024 state election ballot. Cost of teachers, literacy coaches, behavior specialists, administrative assistants and nurses positions and regular facilities maintenance. department Medford public schools fiscal 25 appropriation 3 million and further rescind the city council's june 11 2024 vote appropriating the sum of 1.75 million in american rescue plan act funds as a one-time advance for the fiscal 25 mps budget sorry there just a second Supplemental appropriation to Department of Public Works is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raised by taxation and appropriate additional sum of 500,000 for the Department of Public Works consistent with the vote under question seven on the November 5 2024 state election ballot for additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair related insurance expenses and related capital expenses. All is set forth in the chart below. Department DPW highway salaries FY 25 appropriations $270,192.64. DPW highway expenses fiscal 25 $67,195.36. Related insurance expenses fiscal 25 $102,612. Related capital expenses including for example trucks to be used by additional staff $60,000 total $500,000. Supplemental appropriation three, Medford Public Schools. It is hereby ordered that the city of Medford raised by taxation and appropriate the additional sum of four million to supplement the fiscal year 2025 Medford Public Schools operating budget for the purposes stated in question eight on the November 5th, 2024 state election ballot to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vocational programming to expand classroom instructional opportunities and for classroom and teacher paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024 And to effectuate and further the will of the voters of the city of Medford as evidenced by their approval of question eight, the school committee per its procedures and prior to expenditure of the funds appropriated here under shall determine in detail the specific anticipated operational costs and expenses to provide the reference programming. Department Medford Public Schools, fiscal 25, $4 million, total $4 million. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And also we have included here a budget breakdown for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair outlining three new positions in the Department of Public Works, a PW14 Mason working foreman, PW8 maintenance craftsman and laborer, PW8 maintenance craftsman laborer, overtime estimated at $23,000 per employee, stipends for OSHA 1030 clothing and CPR, ordinary expenses, parts and supplies, unleaded gas, repair supplies, asphalt, concrete, manholes, et cetera, totaling $67,195 and additional capital expenses, 60,000, as well as health insurance at 99,000 for the three employees and dental and vision at 3,400 for a total of 500,000 for the DPW. With that, I will go to the chief of staff, if there's anything that you would like to add to the presentation, and then we can go to questions by councilors.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will also offer Commissioner McGivern if there's anything you want to add.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Further discussion, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this matter? Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears. Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes. Communications from city officers and employees 24495 submitted by director of traffic and transportation Todd Blake authorization of future blue bikes contract exceeding three years to Medford City Council from Todd Blake director of traffic and transportation. Sorry, authorization of future blue bikes contract exceeding three years This memorandum summarizes the request to authorize a future contract as required by section 12 of chapter 30 be the general laws, the city's contract with lift the operator blue blue bikes will expire in fall 2025. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council intends to issue a request for proposals on behalf of all the municipalities that are part of the Blue Bike system to select a new operator in 2025. MAPC will select one operator to manage the entire system to ensure that it continues to operate regionally. Each municipality will then have the opportunity to contract with the selected operator separately or enter into a joint contract. It is the intention of Blue Bikes municipalities to enter into a five-year contract with two two-year options to renew with the future operator. entering into a longer-term contract will encourage the future operator to provide a higher level of service to users and help secure more funding through the system's title sponsorship, which will then allow the service to continue growing throughout the region. And I'm not gonna read the rest if folks don't mind me reading the legalese on chapter 30B. All right. I think we're good. I'm gonna go to director Todd Blake.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Todd. I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just FYI, we're having some audio issues with your audio, Vice President Collins. Todd sounded fine, right? Yeah, might be on your end, Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins has motion to approve. Is there any, is there a second? Second by Councilor Tseng. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Director Blake, is there anything you want to share relative to bike safety infrastructure as related to blue bikes or otherwise?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Blake. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, is that right? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. The last things that we had, we have a public participation item from Andrew Castagnetti. And thank you, Director Blake. And we did have the tabled item regarding the crew team. I'm thinking maybe we should just table both of them to the next regular meeting. Yeah. Crew team's already tabled. All right, crew team's tabled, so we'll put that back on the next regular meeting agenda. And then is there a motion to table Mr. Castagnetti's public participation item for the next regular meeting? On the motion to table the public participation item from the gentleman from East Med Ford by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in favor of the negative, the motion is tabled. Any further discussion? All in If you would like to participate in public, please raise your hand on Zoom or in person. Is he walking up?
[Zac Bears]: Andy, we just tabled your item. We're almost done. Do you want to speak tonight? You're a little late. We'll take you. Motion to take the paper off the table from Mr. Cassidy by Councilor Leming seconded by Councilor Callahan. One second Mr. Clerk please call the roll. We just need to, we have to vote to bring it back. Councilor Callahan, we're in a roll call. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, if everyone's done the negative, the motion passes. Mr. Cassidy, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It was definitely the first bridge over the Mystic.
[Zac Bears]: So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, I appreciate the gesture to Larry. We miss him every day, and we will figure out how to do it I just appreciate you bringing it in the form of a check and not cash. So that that helps.
[Zac Bears]: just when I thought I was out. I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan who has requested the microphone. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further discussion? Any further participation in the public participation section of the meeting? I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Eunice Browne on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Hi Eunice. On the second question we have not yet received the report from the Charter Commission I think it's expected towards the end of the month or the beginning of next month. for tomorrow night. I honestly was unsure as to what was going to happen with the paper tonight. So I didn't know if there'd be a lot of discussion about it. I didn't know if we'd want to move to another meeting. I didn't know if there may be a motion to table. So that's why we have the two meetings. We approved it and it's been disposed with tonight. So I don't expect that we will have the regular meeting tomorrow night, but we will have the committee of the whole on the tree ordinance at six o'clock.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If anyone else would like to participate, please approach the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I ended up at City Hall and it's here to Anna setting up zoom right now. Oh geez. Oh no I was here anyway. But I think maybe apologies to Anna. I had a meeting here at five.
[Zac Bears]: He has them, sorry, he sent them to Paula. Paula's gonna present them. Okay, cool.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify. So this language for the major renovation. This is the language from the building code that the Great, and then for the X and the AE for FEMA, does X correspond to the 1% chance? Does AE correspond to the 0.2% chance? Just where would those fit in?
[Zac Bears]: Um wait, uh, President Barry's, uh, I was later. No, that was me. I was late on that one. Um. I would just throw out the idea of maybe a 25% at least 25% affordable, um, as a minimum threshold. Um. I also just had a question about how. This interfaces with the solar ordinance. Um. You know, because I think if we're talking about some. you know, relatively large buildings with relatively small side setbacks. And we also have the solar ordinance requiring solar on the rooftop. I'm just wondering how much that limits the green roof type solution.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so Council President Bears. Thanks. Um, and on that front, I think It seems like we're kind of getting this in, the framework in, and there's just a couple of things that we're gonna work through as we adopt more districts and we're able to do the research on the community solar. But I just was wondering, maybe it's a question for Paula, looking at other ordinances, or maybe a question for the building commissioner. Are there other places or other zoning requirements where we use the same approach that you described, Mr. Commissioner, with the bond question versus a temporary occupancy permit? Scott?
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, Mr. Chair.
[Zac Bears]: It sounds to me like the concern is if they finish up in November, they're not doing plantings till the spring, if they already have all the permits and approvals they need from the city, maybe they just never follow through with their landscaping plan. Is that essentially the concern we're trying to correct for?
[Zac Bears]: Council President Bears. Yeah, they could also be incorporated during the CD board hearing. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I'll just I'll make a motion to refer out to the regular meeting pending the discussion. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, I just wanted to note Alicia and I both posted some links to the documents. Apologies that they weren't up on the council portal. They went up, we got them after the final, the agenda went up online. So I forgot to upload them, but I just uploaded them. And I think Alicia, beat me to it and had them uploaded to the city website before this meeting, so.
[Zac Bears]: You can take the pending further discussion part out. We had it. I just wanted to make sure we didn't do it until we heard from the public.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And we definitely, you know, I hear what you're saying, George, and We've had some discussions about how we're going to get the word out going forward. I think the first thing to say is that for Salem Street. The next meeting we're going to discuss, this is going to be December 11th, and the plan is to get that out through all the different city channels, an announcement, and save the date for that community meeting, digital flyer, and I believe we're going to work on a robocall for that meeting. And then for the meetings from January through May, the plan is to put together a full uh release and web page that talks about different neighborhoods that we're going to be talking about each month and my goal is also to have hopefully um along with that the meeting dates and get those out a month in advance and do uh the follow-up of the announcement um the flyer putting it out in the city newsletter and the planning newsletter and doing a robocall to those neighborhoods uh in advance of the meetings so that we can um Get that message out more clearly. So we talked about that after our last meeting and we want to Just get that a little cleaner and tighter so that folks know a little more in advance and that we have the Um, all of the different city outreach tools at our disposal are used to reach folks about those meetings.
[Zac Bears]: do you take public participation?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I was, I don't think we have kind of like a neighborhoods program per se. Um, and I'm not sure what the capacity would be to, uh, coordinate that, uh, with the communications officer, the community relations, uh, staff. Um, but I mean, I think that's the very least something we can try to do is also share this information out through the community liaisons and they might have, uh, through the health department, they might have some, grounding in different neighborhoods of the city, but yeah, I don't know what the mayor's team in community relations and constituent services has in terms of volunteers around like a neighborhood program.
[Zac Bears]: There's no one in the chamber, no.
[Zac Bears]: 21st regular meeting Medford City Council November 12 2024 is called to order Mr. please call the roll Council Callahan, Vice President Collins Council is our Council Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President, President Bears present seven present none absent the meeting is called to order please rise to salute the flag. Announcements accolades remembrances reports and records records the records of the meeting of October 29 2024 pastor Councilor Callahan Councilor Callahan how did you find those records. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Collins Mr. Clerk please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative negative the motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion just a reminder that the intent of this section is for us to refer items to committee for further discussion, no final action will be taken on these items during this meeting. 24491 resolution to discuss compensation ordinance for elected officials. It looks like there's an amended version resolution to discuss ordinance to disallow the city council from passing any salary changes that affect sitting elected officials by councilor Callahan. Whereas only the city council can change the salaries of Medford elected officials, mayor, city council and school committee. And whereas there's no way for elected officials to adjust elected official salaries for inflation or general cost of living increases without the city council voting to change elected official salaries. And whereas there is a personal incentive for city Councilors to increase their own salaries, whereas the city council increasing salaries that are increasing salaries of others is viewed as in form of impropriety and be it resolved that this governance committee take up an ordinance to disallow the city council from passing any salary changes that affect sitting elected officials and to encourage city council to consider Cola adjustments for elected officials in the next cycle. I would just note before turning this over for a brief, I hope, discussion or introduction by the proponent before the motion to refer to committee that I don't think an ordinance would affect this at all we already have three charter and state laws that affect this so as a plan a charter chapter 4317 a. already applies to the city. Chapter 71, section 52 governs how school committees are compensated. And then the acts of 2002 chapter 447 is a Medford specific law that would supersede any ordinance passed by the city. So the way to go at this is with charter amendment, not with an ordinance. But with that, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: We're on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to governance committee seconded by Councilor Collins, excuse me, please wait. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what I can say is that state law controls here no matter what, but I will go to councilor Callahan. You've amended your resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I would just note again, The existing law for the school committee is Chapter 71 Section 52, which means we have to do that. And the existing law for the city is the Mass General Law Acts of 2002 Chapter 447, which I think was an attempt to in 2003 to try to get this to be more of a something that happens as part of the course of other folks, specifically that says that the mayor and the council salaries would increase the same amount as the director of budgets, finance director, director of community development, city clerk, city treasurer, city solicitor, chief assessor, the average percentage for those offices. So those are the current laws that apply. Any further discussion from members of the council before I go back to Councilor Callahan? Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: So first of all, that has been removed and that's like... I think the problem is that we didn't need to have this discussion right now. That's the issue. I mean, I just think this is a waste of everyone's time to be completely honest. There's a law in place. And in fact, the city council and the mayor, like what the law is, is that when other people's salaries go up, the senior management of the city, the council and the mayor salary would also go up by that same average percentage. That's the current law on the books. That's what happened in June. So I think there's misrepresentation on all sides of what happened. And I think that's just my perspective. And I apologize for just giving my opinion from the chair without recognizing anybody else, but I just didn't like, really don't think this is a productive conversation on any front, because everybody seems pretty confused and frustrated on all sides. There was a motion to refer it to committee. It was seconded, Councilor Lazzaro. Give me one second. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I'm gonna go to Councilor Leming, then Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just gonna let him finish and you can go.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think we just did a very good thing for our community, but...
[Zac Bears]: Let's not get back and forth, guys.
[Zac Bears]: I hear you, but let's not go for it.
[Zac Bears]: We went through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: You did publicly represent the organization, so... People talk about me and our revolution from this council floor all the time, George. Do what, George? Okay, people are just saying what they want to say, George. You say a lot of stuff all the time. I'll let you talk. Any further discussion? All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right, there's a motion to refer to committee. Is there a second. All right, then we any further discussion by members of the council. Members of the public, three minutes, same address for the record, please. We'll alternate between Zoom and in person. You can go.
[Zac Bears]: You can go.
[Zac Bears]: I wasn't behind this, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's no organization behind this.
[Zac Bears]: I just, you can't lie.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. South, if you're gonna be disrespectful, we're not gonna continue here.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. South, if you're gonna be disrespectful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. South as you know the city council does not negotiate union contracts, and this was proposed by one Councilor. I don't support it. I don't think it was something that we should be bringing up right now but we can continue to say whatever we want for political purposes. I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means. There's no overseers. Thank you. Well, you can believe, sir, please stop. You're an embarrassment, Mr. South. Get out of here. You should leave. Mr. Self, on the motion to recess. No, I don't, I don't. If you can't handle, you need to work a little better at that. And you maybe need to go to a little anger management. You're disgusting.
[Zac Bears]: The emotions are running a little high. We'll go to the podium, name and address the record. And Nadine, if you're here in person, I'm guessing your hand's not up here on Zoom. All right, you're good. It just would have been your turn. All right, name and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium name and address the record please you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It is what it is
[Zac Bears]: I'm behind the podium and I'm going to restart your three minutes because you're nice to me.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just let him, let's just go through. And the initial one that mentioned it, the Councilor has edited it to remove it.
[Zac Bears]: We're going back to three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: School Committee member Bramley, you will have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. name and address for the record you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It's a new system.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Nadine. I'm gonna go to Zoom real quick and then we'll come back at Stone. I'm gonna go to Ken Garrow on Zoom. Ken, name and address for the record for this little three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, you're sounding a little funky there. How about this? That's better, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Thankfully, I actually was able to... Councilor Scarpelli has just noted that he is not a board member. ...organization that I follow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the proposal as it stands is that the City Council could not increase its own salary or the salary of any other elected official until, if an increase were to go into effect, it would go into effect after the next election.
[Zac Bears]: The current compensation is, I believe $30,400. Thank you. 30,000 what? 400, I think. And other stipends or other funds, US dollars come into your?
[Zac Bears]: I don't think that information is immediately available.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Had a conversation about it. Believe we have a motion to refer this to the Governance Committee by Councilor Callahan as amended and seconded by Councilor Collins. Any further discussion. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry, go ahead, continue.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And I'm just going to go real quick. I think there's two things here. I think there are the facts and the substance of the matter right now, the way it works by state law and charter. is that the school committee compensation is set by a vote of the city council. The city council controls the amount and the timing for school committee. For the mayor and the city council, the city council, that is actually set by an average of the, let me read it exactly. The salaries may be increased at the recommendation of the Mayor and the approval of the City Council if the salaries of each of the following officers of the City of Medford are increased. Director of Budgets and Personnel, Finance Director Auditor, Director of Community Development, City Clerk, City Treasurer, collector city solicitor and the chief assessor appraiser. Any salary increase for the office of mayor and the members of the city council should not increase exceed the average percentage by which the salaries for the aforesaid officers is increased. The city council does not have the power to set its own salary at whatever it amount tomorrow. There are restrictions right now on what the city council can do in terms of the salaries of the mayor and the city council and it's that If the mayor puts it forward and the council approves, they can go up by the average of essentially the main management of the city. That's the current law. Councilor Callahan, I believe's intent, and I think to be honest, it was not a particularly clear resolution to make the point. It references other city charters, but talks about an ordinance, it references COLA, but I believe the intent was to move away from what I just read, which is that the city council and mayor salary can increase by the average of essentially city managing staff, to that the city council's salary could not increase in the term in which the city council voted, current city council is sitting. I think that's a substance. I think on the optics and the discussion, people aren't going to go into the substance all the time and discuss the good faith substance that someone may be proposing. We've had a lot of contentious conversations about compensation that we can call it salaries or stipends or whatever else we wanna call it. This council has had it for many years. There were discussions in the 2000s and the 2010s and the 1990s about compensation for the city council. The city council in 2016, or sorry 2013 completely changed the way the city council is compensated because it used to be based on what Andy was talking about pencils and supplies and travel and all of these kind of nebulous things. So there's been a lot of there's a lot of legislative history on the compensation elected officials in the city. And I think what people are expressing, and I think those people maybe are both folks behind the other side of the rail who are saying, I don't like that we're talking about raising elected officials' compensation. And to be quite frankly, I think what you were saying, Councilor Callahan, about some of us who felt that since school committee hadn't changed since 2000 and the city council since 2016, that following the laws as are laid out to adjust that compensation was a fair thing. but we also didn't want to be having this conversation. At least I think so by the looks on everybody's faces. I think George doesn't want to be having it either. And I can't see Justin right now, but I bet he doesn't want to either. So the substance, it's a fair discussion. How do we do that? How do elected official salaries get changed? It's a state law and a charter issue. We're going to have discussions. I think the charter study committee actually has some recommendations around that, that we'll be discussing. But then there's also what happened last week, what happened this week. And I think we all acknowledge there's some people in the room who are happy question six didn't pass. There's some people in the room who are happy question seven and eight did pass. Nobody's happy. There's a mixed result. We don't even have to get into other elections that happened last Tuesday that I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of feelings about. But I think that's more what the question is here than the substance of, and some people may well be happy about, as I see as well. But I think it's just like, is this the conversation we'll be having today? And I think a lot of us feel the answer is no, but beyond that, We'll go back to the podium. We'll just do a couple more minutes. Go ahead, Harry, let me turn on the mic. You got three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Harry. And I do just want to know that we have heard from a lot of our union partners here before the rail. We don't participate in the negotiations, but we do, what our small part is, we do approve the final agreements and we have, I think, consistently waived readings to move agreed collective bargaining agreements to get the pay to the folks as soon as those agreements have been met. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do hope that the rest of the meeting was less of an SS then, which I think was the swear word you wanted to say, but less of a mess then. But you know, we can have the civil conversations as Nick said, but yeah. All right, we've had the discussion on the motion of Councilor Callahan as amended by Councilor Callahan a seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to refer to governance Council Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 formative one in the negative this is referred to governance committee 24492 resolution receive update on roads whereas it has been more than six months and city council was last updated on our roads. And whereas during the election of November 5, the voters of Medford considered a budget override provision in question seven providing funds for among other purposes fiscal year 2025 general operations of the Department of Public Works. including but not limited to additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair, and that ballot question was successful. Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works and Facilities Committee invite Engineer Owen Wartella and DPW Commissioner Tim McGibbon to attend an upcoming meeting to talk about the state of the roads and the plan moving forward given the outcome of the election. Councilor Callahan. And this is on the motion to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to refer to Public Works and Facilities, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion? Seeing no discussion by members of the council members of the public, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes, negative the motion passes 24493 resolution established volunteer tree planting program whereas Medford loses an estimated 500 or more trees a year and plants 250 fewer than 250 trees each year. And whereas the cost of planning city trees is primarily in labor to plant the trees. and whereas Medford only has one full-time staff member dedicated to our trees, the tree warden, and whereas Medford currently contracts out for tree planting, which is more expensive than planting with an in-house crew, and whereas trees are a vital part of fighting climate change, helping cool buildings and streets in the summer, and add to the beauty of our city, and whereas Medford has many residents who want to volunteer to plant city trees, Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works and Facilities Committee invite you BW Commissioner McGibbon to attend an upcoming meeting to begin discussing the possibility of allowing Metro residents to volunteer to help plant city trees on the motion to refer to public works and facilities committee Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion referred to Public Works and Facilities Committee by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Fiori, name and address the record of three minutes. Sorry, give me one second. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Chair, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, affirmative, non-negative, the motion passes. 24484, this was tabled from our last meeting. This is a resolution to adopt the local options of the HEROES Act. I believe we heard back from council and the city solicitor, or sorry, council and the city assessor. fingers crossed on that city solicitor, that this was sufficient as to form and that the impact would not be significant. It would be addressed by the overlay, but I will go to Councilor Leopold.
[Zac Bears]: So the amended version would read be it further resolved that the city of Medford accept general laws chapter 59 section 5 clause 22 J which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under general laws chapter 59 section 5 clause 22 22 a 22 b 22 c 22 e and 22 f by 100% of the personal exemption amount subject to the conditions in clause 22 J to be effective July 1 2025 that is correct. Great. On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, as amended by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, any further discussion? And just to note, this is expanding property tax exemptions for veterans pursuant to the HERO Act, which was passed as Chapter 178 of the Acts of 2024 by the legislature. Vice President Collins. One second.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. on the motion of council I mean as seconded by councillor Callahan to approve as amended. Mr. please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears, yes 70 from him done the negative the motion passes to 4487 submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. This is the capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. We did hear from our fire chief or dpw commissioner facilities director. This is for engine three truck pump replacement $51,643 24 cents. cemetery soil removal $120,000 grant match for the municipal vulnerability vulnerability preparedness action grant for updating the 2019 climate change vulnerability assessment and developing an urban forest master plan. That's $24,600 and the city hall, all the memorial chambers, window restoration, $322,500. This is appropriation requests from the capital stabilization fund requiring a two third majority vote. The stabilization fund has a balance of $3,923,737. And if these appropriations remain all approved, It would be at $3,404,993.76. And at the last meeting, this was a B paper amendment requesting an update on the mayor's capital plan, particularly as it relates to additional fire apparatus. And subsequently to that, Councilor Scarpelli invoked rule 21 table in this paper until the next meeting. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, Let's go let's take it actually the B paper first, and I'll take you on both Councilors got probably motion to approve the B paper seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. please call the role. The B paper is requesting an update on the mayor's capital plan, particularly as it relates to the additional fire apparatus. Yes, please call the roll on the paper on the paper, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears, yes, 70 permanent negative the motion passes on the paper on the main paper motion approved by Councilor Scarpelli a seconded by Vice President Collins, any further discussion by members of the council. Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Gaston, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Sorry. I'll get there.
[Zac Bears]: I would have to go back and double check the recording, but I believe they bid out for the engine three truck pump and it came in at a higher cost. So this is covering a difference in a bidded amount. The cemetery swill removal, I think will go to bid and is based on an estimate or a quote or multiple quotes, but would still go to bid. The grant matches based on the grant and I, I'd have to double check 30 be, but I think because the grant match it's not subject to fitting right anything over 10,000 except there's some certain exceptions legal legal services, and a couple other things aren't subject to 30 be. And then the third, the fourth one though, it is something that's already the windows, I believe the windows is definitely Yeah, yeah. And but I believe this is based. Mr. Ricky said that he had an estimate. And that's how he determined this cost and then it would go out to bid through the 30. Okay, perfect.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you very much. Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I didn't want to. Right, if they're, what is that I can't remember what that's called. It's the state bid list. Yeah, yeah. All right. All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Vice President Collins to approve. Mr. please call.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Any further public participation? Take public participation on any item that was not on the agenda. All right, Andy, name and address the record or Ellen. Ellen, name and address for record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think there is only so much we can do. Most of the time, most people are respectful. I think we've made some strides even in the last few months from some less than respectful interactions. To be quite frank, I think this was a situation where somebody needs to check themselves. I don't know what else to say about that, but you know, we had an individual who has persistently and consistently not felt that he feels the need to respect this chair, particularly me, in a very personal way. So other than replacing me, if anyone wants the job, I don't know that that'll solve this problem, but we have had, we've tried to institute some decorum. I was able to, you know, now with the new system to shut off the microphone at the three minute mark, but I understand your distress. I share in your distress. I'm sure you could tell that I was frustrated and felt the need to combat it maybe in a way that I should have breathed through a little more, but yeah, sometimes some people, want to come here to make a show. And given that we are an open forum, it's difficult to manage sometimes.
[Zac Bears]: I think we could consider that for sure.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? We'll go to Mr. Castagnetti. Three minutes, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I think exactly three minutes to boot. I think to Andy's point, Albert Einstein, and I'll throw in famed socialist Albert Einstein said, I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. And that's not a world any of us wanna live in. So let's hope not. Any further discussion? Any further public participation? I see no hands on Zoom, no one at the podium. Councilor Lazzaro. The motion to adjourn by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. President Bears. Yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 20th regular meeting Medford City Council October 2024 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24480, offered by President Bears, resolution to thank two DPW staff members for an act of kindness and their dedicated service to Medford. Whereas on Saturday, October 5th, quick thinking by DPW employees, Jeff Gangy and Anthony Pompeo helped return a lost wallet to Robert Bohannon, an 82 year old disabled veteran. And whereas Mr. Bohannon was deeply thankful to have the wallet returned, both because it was designed by his late brother and because the cards and information would have taken months to replace, describing the act, quote, as quote, as close to a miracle as we have experienced and, Whereas Mr. Bohannon and his wife wanted to express their gratitude and, quote, do something for these really thoughtful employees while noting that, quote, they wouldn't take anything and including his letter with the words, quote, we love Medford. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we thank Jeff Genge and Anthony Pompeo from our DPW for their dedicated service to the city of Medford and honor their active service and kindness that was described as Mr. Bohannon as, quote, the best of many great moments I've experienced in Medford. For me, we just got a really, really kind email and I felt like it was worth saying thanks. Anyone want to say anything? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Vice President Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting of October 15th, 2024, yes, were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, you don't have to call the roll. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. reports of committees 24475 offered by council President Bears committee of the whole October 15 2024. This was the question and answer session that we held October 15 regarding the proposed override and debt exclusion ballot questions that are on the ballot on November 5. And just a point of note, as regards to the voting Councilor Scarpelli raised to me the point of the letting people know if you're coming in, we're seeing a lot of early voting, a lot of mail voting. And just a reminder to everyone, when you early vote or you mail vote, your ballot is put into a sealed envelope and that envelope is opened on election day and counted on election day. So if you're expecting it to run through the machine on the early voter, the mail vote, that's not how the state law around elections work. So those envelopes will be opened by the elections department staff on election day and then will be run through the machines on election day, along with all the ballots of everyone who votes on election day. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion to approve the committee report. Bye. Vice President Collins seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed motion passes 22379 22453 and 24470 offered by Council is our own public and health public health and Community Safety Committee October 16 2024 report to follow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? The motion passes. 24069 and 24354 offered by Councilor Leming, Chair of Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, October 22nd, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins planning and permitting committee October 23 2024 report to follow Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the committee report by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to suspend the rules to take public participation, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertobeast at medford-ma.gov. We do have a petition from Marian Tomaszczuk. We have here October 23rd, 2024 petition to the Honorable City Council, Councilors, the undersigned respectfully pray for discussion of the well-used parking lot adjacent to the Medford Senior Center. So recognize Marian and we will go from there. Let me give you one second to turn on your microphone.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to the members of the council. Does anyone like to respond before we go to members of the public? We'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. And I do have a response from the planning department as well.
[Zac Bears]: Would you rather go first? No. Okay. and then we'll go to, I'm gonna read the response, we'll go to councilors, then we'll go to the public. I have here to Council President Bears and honorable members of the council regarding the public participation petition respectfully submitted for your honorable body's consideration as additional information about activities concerning the municipally owned parking lot at 75 Riverside Avenue. Clippership pop-up as of October 9th, the corner of the parking lot has been repurposed to create Oh, sorry, repurpose to create the clipper ship pop up park, the pop up is utilized by the city, particularly the recreation department for periodic programming and is otherwise open for passive recreation to the public. To create the pop-up park, no parking spaces were lost. The pop-up area was created from what was a previously redundant drive aisle and six parking spots. To prevent any loss of parking, eight new parking spots were re-striped in the parking lot, resulting in a net positive for parking spaces overall. Please see photos below demonstrating locations of eight new parking spaces. Request for proposals Medford Square, the city published an RFP request for proposal for three underutilized parcels behind City Hall on September 30th, 2024. The city wants to garner interest from developers to explore what redevelopment options there would be for these three combined parcels, including mixed use buildings, affordable housing and parking structures. The city will enter a long-term ground lease for up to 99 years with a qualified developer for these parcels. The due date for responses is December 20th, 2024 at 1 p.m. Community outreach for this project was conducted through focus groups and community meetings through the Transforming the Square project in partnership with Metropolitan Area Planning Council in 2023. MAPC conducted research using previous plans and site visits of the square. Please note that parking for our seniors is a top priority for the city. The mayor explicitly mentioned this in her greeting to developers before the walkthrough last week. Construction employee parking. Due to the large-scale construction project at 121 Riverside Avenue, the adjacent Clippership lot has seen an influx of commercial and personal vehicle parking to accommodate workers and staff. As a result of this temporary parking situation, the mayor contacted Medford Housing Authority Director Jeffrey Driscoll to get a more complete breakdown of what vehicles are occupying spaces during the day, how long this disruption is anticipated and how a compromise can be reached to alleviate community concerns and allow accessibility to the worksite. The mayor concluded that there were up to an additional 40 cars due to the lot construction. Director Driscoll has been receptive and helpful. He reached out to the contractor for support Jim Silva, Special Project Coordinator, also visited the lot earlier last week and requested that the workers use the lower City Hall lot instead so that seniors had spots when visiting the Senior Center. It is a work in progress to get the construction workers to relocate, but we are doing everything possible as parking for our seniors is our priority. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. And I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. We'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. And just procedurally, um, the next steps as far as I understand it, the memo mentioned that responses will be due December 20th. I believe then the planning department would come to this body to request our approval to authorize a land lease. So there would be further public meetings regarding the proposal, and it would require a vote of the council to authorize the city to lease the land. No, I'm just saying that that's the next steps for the RFP, sorry. But we will go to comments and everyone will have three minutes. Give me one second as I figure out our new microphone system. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can speak to the process that the planning department is working on. I spoke with the planning director, Alicia Hunt, and she was at the Chamber of Commerce. I think last week they had a day where all the businesses in the square could meet with her and kind of have conversations about this. That includes the current chair is the Chevalier manager, Andrew Mather, and So that was something that happened, and I know that she relayed to me that there was a lot of excitement, but they did want to be engaged specifically around this question of parking. And one of the things that they were looking at, and I don't know if it's going to happen as part of this project, and it really depends on the proposals that come in from the people who are proposing, was seeing if the parking garage that is attached to Atrius Health could be redeveloped to be a more public parking garage. so that during the day it could be used by the health folks and at night potentially be used for other uses, because right now it's closed at night. But I don't think that would be the only answer, but that was just an idea that I had heard. In any case, there was a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce specifically about these RFPs with the businesses in the square. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak on the topic Councilor Tseng, Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this public participation petition? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I need your name and address for the record to start off.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Callahan, then we'll go back to the microphone for public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I do want to just make a point. I don't disagree with what you said and engaging people is really important, but I just want to be clear that going to the RFP was not the first thing as part of this process. This process references the 2017 Medford Square plan under Mayor Burke. There was a 2019 evaluation of development potential under Mayor Burke. the 2022 housing plan and the 2022 draft comprehensive plan. And there were multiple community meetings last year before the drafting of this RFP, including two at the senior center. So, you know, that work has happened. Maybe not everyone went to every meeting, but when we talk about what happened, I just think that should be noted. There was two public meetings at the senior center talking about this project and the transforming the square initiative.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I certainly don't disagree with that. I do know that the office worked with the senior center to get the word out. And I am hopeful, again, we heard from Dan Kennedy recently online about a city newspaper. We need that level of information and resource, but there have been meetings and we do do as much outreach as we can. And that doesn't always reach everyone, even when we try to reach everyone. We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: In terms of the Colleen's behind there, that's not part of the scope of the request for proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so we don't have the proposals yet, but the request for proposals document says that parking is a priority and that the senior center parking needs to be replaced in full no matter what develops. But the specific proposals such as height, et cetera, hasn't come out yet. And that won't be out until after December 20th, which is the deadline for the proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on this subject Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would just note. that we did receive that they were well attended. We could probably get more information about that to share with folks. And I believe there are recordings available online as well. But it does tend to be as part of the planning process that you spend a the time to do the comprehensive plan, then you spend the time to do the community outreach, and then you put together the proposal. And then again, right, like, that's not the end of the public process. So it's a multi year multi stage planning process. But We're having a conversation right now, and people can come to any council meeting and talk about it, but we also will have further public meetings and public hearings as the process goes forward.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, we'll move to general public participation. Public participation on any topic not on the agenda. Yep.
[Zac Bears]: I saw him just the other day.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion or anyone who'd like to participate in public participation on any item that's not on the agenda for the rest of the evening? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. 24484, resolution to adopt local options of HERO Act, whereas Governor Healey recently signed into law an act honoring, empowering, and recognizing our service members and veterans, also known as the HERO Act, Chapter 178 of the Acts of 2024, to increase benefits, modernize services, and promote inclusivity for veterans in Massachusetts, and whereas the HERO Act allows local option in which cities may tie property tax exemptions and veteran-specific exemptions to the Consumer Price Index allowing for automatic year-to-year increases in these exemptions. Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the City of Medford accept General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22i, which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22, 22a, 22b, 22c, 22e, and 22f, by the percentage increase in the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for the previous year as determined by the Department of Revenue to be effective for the applicable exemptions granted for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 2025, and be it further resolved that the City of Medford accept the General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 22J, which authorizes an annual increase in the amount of the exemption granted under General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clauses 22, 22A, 22B, 22C, 22E, and 22F by up to 100% of the personal exemption amount subject to the conditions in Clause 22J to be effective for applicable exemptions granted for any fiscal year beginning on or after July 1st, 2025. And we do have attached here the memo from the Division of Local Services of the State Department of Revenue regarding the HERO Act. and I believe Councilor Leming has also discussed this with the assessor. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: That was what he on the motion of Councilor Leming to refer this paper for legal review seconded by Councilor Kelly and is there any further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I'll go back to Councilor Leming in just a second, but I was on some of the email chains and we can get that. Ted has already said he doesn't expect it to be a significant impact on the overlay. And yeah, but I'll go to Councilor Leming, he had more of the conversations than I did.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Megan. I mean, I would note DLS literally gave us sample language here and that's the language we're using. I personally don't think this needs to go to KP for however long they're going to take on it. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's really written, but if we want to just get a letter from the assessor and then we can take it up in two weeks or something. And if KP can get us something in two weeks,
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So I think that would mean that would be a motion to table till the next regular meeting and request a memo from the assessor and legal if they can provide one.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On that motion by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favor. All those opposed. Motion passes and this is tabled to the next regular meeting pending those requests. And Councilor Leming if you could just ping Ted, and maybe Nina for KP. And the clerk can coordinate with you on that. 24489 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved, a resolution request information on review of fire department policies and procedures. Be it resolved that the city council receive a copy of the final report and any additional preliminary information recently completed by the consultants that reviewed the Medford Fire Department policies and procedures. Be it further resolved that Chief Evans and consultants attend the next council meeting to explain the findings. Be it further resolved that the details in the consultant's report have any recommendations involving the designs of our fire headquarters and that its findings be immediately presented before the November 5th override vote. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to members of the council first. Anyone would like to comment on the item? Seeing none, Chief, if you would like to speak, you're more than welcome to. It's your call, and then we can go to members of the public.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the request is for the report for the consultant to be released.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Is this an amendment to the resolution to request? It says here right now, consultants attend the next city council meeting. Do we want to change that to a future council meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council? Vice President Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We can open it to public participation. We can take people at the podium or on Zoom. Seeing no hands on zoom and no one at the podium in the chamber on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes. 24490 offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins amendment to the zoning ordinance mystic Avenue quarter district for full to the Community Development Board. This memorandum contains draft text for the following proposed zoning changes, amend section 94 dash 2.1 division into districts page two. Amend and section 94 dash 3.2 table of use regulations table a dimensional standards page three, and then section 94 dash 4.1 table of dimensional requirements table be page nine, amend section 94 dash 12.0 definitions page 10 and insert section 94 dash nine dot x mystic Avenue quarter district page 12. And I will go to Vice President Collins in just a second but just to say, this has been discussed I think we've had 13 committee meetings on the zoning updates project and the planning and permitting committee meet in planning and permitting committee. This was referred out last week, procedurally the next steps are that we would now refer to the Community Development Board, they will hold a public hearing. then they will refer it back with amendments or without to the City Council where the City Council will hold a public hearing. And at that public hearing, the City Council would vote to adopt finally. So there are two more public hearings on this proposal and I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to refer to community development by Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Leming. We'll have further discussion I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to know. I don't think any proposal for 12 stories on Salem Street. it's I think it's I know I just I know. I just want to put it out there. You know, if anyone is thinking that that is not been discussed at all, um, it would be, I think, significantly out of scope. I do have the innest proposal that we accepted here. Um, and project deliverables number two meetings. This phase includes the meetings throughout the process. Um, And there's meetings city staff monthly for the length of the project. City Council 10 to 15 throughout the three phases updates the Community Development Board one in each phases one and 22 and phase three public workshops to. steering committee, six to eight stakeholder interviews, 12 to 15, four to five per phasers targeted to phases one and three. So that is what the proposal was. And I do know that NS Associates and planning department have done a lot of one to one discussions with folks in different neighborhoods. And I think something that we've discussed, as we discussed in the committee meeting last week, is trying to just be more clear and direct and use more of the city resources that are available to say, and our goal is to do this a month in advance. Here's the meeting at which we will be talking about this specific area, and to try to use the city resources of the robocall system, as well as the different newsletters and digital outreach to inform people in each neighborhood, an area about that. the limited technological capability of us to hold public meetings in a hybrid fashion anywhere except for this room. That has been a limiting factor, but we do want to get that out there in advance of each specific area of discussion so that folks can say, I live in this neighborhood, here's the meeting about my neighborhood, I can voice my input at that meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That's a good point. That may be a typo. We should just note that for Innis and the planning department as it moves through planning development, community development board, they can correct that and send it back to us amended.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I will note, basically, We haven't won one of these districts before. I don't think as a council, this council, Community Development Board will refer back an amended proposal to us. We could then make amendments at the public hearing. If we feel we can either, we don't have to accept all the Community Development Board amendments, we can make additional amendments. I'm just trying to look at the map from our last meeting, but I'll go to Councilor Collins, if you're finished. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, and I'd note that question resource I know someone who was just hired as the communications director for the parking department in Cambridge. So, it's not to communication search for the city it's like one person per department which is wild level of resources that I would love to see the city have just one note, the difference between MX one and MX two is the step backs. So that's why there would be a change in the massing. I was just looking at the map. That was a helpful reference point. It is still maximum six in the MX two, but the step back is different versus the MX one on the motion of vice president Collins, seconded by council. Let me to refer this amendment to the community development board. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chamber. We'll go to Melanie Tringali. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, a lot of those are based on the existing use table. CDB means Special Permit Granting Authority is the Community Development Board. One thing that we're planning to do at the end of the project is realign the use table and take a second look at the special permitting, special permit granting authority for the uses. But most of this, basically anything that's not a new use, which I think is highlighted in bold, is essentially following the special permit currently in the use table.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, on the motion by Councilor Collins seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven the affirmative, none the negative. This is referred to community vote. Communications from the mayor 24485 dear to the honorable president members of the city council regarding proposed way to just for the parking union I respect the request and recommend the city council approve the following amendments to the revised ordinances chapter 66 article two. parking effective July 1 2022 increased base salary of all parking union union titles by 2.25% effective July 1 2023 2.5% effective July 1 2024 3% effective July 1 2025 2.5% effective July 1 2026 2.5% human resources director Lisa Crowley is available to answer any questions thank you for your kind attention to this matter respectfully submitted Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. I will go to Vice President Collins and then Director Crowley.
[Zac Bears]: I think she's available for questions. Do we have any questions for Director Crowley? I have one or Councilor Callahan looks like we have one there.
[Zac Bears]: I think this probably reflects a recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement. Go to Director Crowley.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And what's the expiration date of the contract?
[Zac Bears]: Go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve this paper and waive the three readings so that it's approved tonight, and that means that it can get processed faster. It doesn't have to wait for advertising and then wait another month. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, Director Crowley, is there anything else you'd like to add?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. All right, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes and this paper is approved and the way readings are waived so this is ordained to 4486 offered by may bring a current recommendation for Community Preservation Committee appointments. We have two papers here we have dear President various members of the City Council I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body confirm the appointment of Misha gender of Medford to the Community Preservation Committee for a term to expire, September 10 2025. And then I have here, please let this serve as a formal recommendation for the appointment of Maisha Jumder to the Community Preservation Committee to fill out the remaining vacant mayoral appointee position with a term of one year. And that came from Teresa Dupont, who we have here. So I will go to Teresa, and we do have the appointee here as well. If there's anything you'd like to add, and then we can go to members of the council. One second. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, and I'm happy to read before I recognize you. Maisha Majumder has been a resident mentor for several years, having been a Tufts graduate and staying local to our community. While at Tufts, Maisha studied civil engineering and quantitative economics, as well as urban planning. After Tufts, Maisha continued her studies at the Fletcher School, studying international finance and international development environmental policy. Currently, she works for a solar and energy storage development company, where her team builds community solar projects nationally. Maisha's professional portfolio can be reviewed at maishamajumder.com. And we have some commonalities here. We have our solar industry professional Councilor, Scarpelli. We have our Tufts graduate who stuck around, Vice President Collins. So we'll go to Maisha now, if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Does anyone have any questions? Just welcoming you, and that's what everyone's saying. So we will move to, is there a motion on the floor? Motion by Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, even though Councilor Collins used the request. So I'll go to Councilor Collins if there's anything you'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Seems like we're all in agreement here on the motion by Councilors are probably seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clark, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Congratulations, and welcome. Oh, yeah. Cool. Are you sticking around are you done. No, no, I don't think you need to, I just wanted to check. All right, 24 487 offered by the mayor capital stabilization fund appropriation requests. We have dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriations, the capital stabilization fund, engine three truck pump replacement in the amount of $51,643 and 24 cents, cemetery soil removal in the amount $120,000 and zero cents, grant match for the municipal vulnerability preparedness action grant for updating the 2019 climate change of vulnerability assessment and developing an urban forest master plan in the amount of $24,600. and zero cents and city hall Howard all the memorial chambers window restoration and the amount of $322,500 and zero cents. As your honorable body knows any appropriation from the stabilization account requires two thirds majority vote of the city council capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of $3,923,737. given the appropriations made by the Council of the State, if all of the above are approved, the Capital Stabilization Fund would have $3,404,993.76 that remains. Fire Chief Evans will be available to answer questions. Well, Chief Evans is here, DPW Commissioner McIvern's here, Paul Riggi's here. So we can go first to engine three, truck pump replacement, we'll go to Chief Evans.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do have us penciled in December 11 for a meeting on stabilization funds capital planning. Okay, thank you. There's the B paper by Councilor Scarpelli to request an update on the, the capital plan regarding the fire apparatus, the trucks. Any further questions for Chief Evans on the pump repair replacement. Seeing none. Thank you, Chief, and we'll move next to cemetery soil removal and the grant match with Director McIvern, or Commissioner McIvern, my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Great. We will go to Councilor Callahan. Oh, yeah, I touch it.
[Zac Bears]: This is in the back, if you've ever been, it's a giant pile of dirt.
[Zac Bears]: It's like a pile of grass now.
[Zac Bears]: I know as a member of the MMA's Public Works Committee, Mass Municipal Association, we talk often about the cost of remediating and removing soil. Yeah, and it's a huge expense.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on the soil removal? Seeing none, we'll go to the grant match on the MVP action grant. Anything else on that? Anything else you want to say on that, Tim? Nope. All right. Then we can finish out with all the memorial chambers. Then we can take public participation on the item. We have Howard Alderman Memorial Chamber's window restoration. I'm guessing this has something to do with when I walked in here and there was broken glass after a windstorm. maybe hopefully more than that too, but I will go to Director, Facilities Manager, Ricky. Facilities Director, Ricky.
[Zac Bears]: I'm doing well. Thank you so much for being here and sticking with us through the pandemic.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: All right, then we will go to Councilor, anyone else? I just have a question, Paul. I'm assuming it'll be like historically accurate, but also environmentally, we'll be looking at, you know, modern windows to address the heat issue and make sure that we're keeping heat and cool air in the chamber. I know that's a huge problem as well with these windows.
[Zac Bears]: because of the historical status of the building. And these are the original windows, right?
[Zac Bears]: So they're about 85 years old or so. Yes. All right. Any further questions on this? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Are you invoking that on the whole paper? Yes, please. All four items? All right, on that invocation, this is tabled to the next regular meeting. Thank you, Director Riggi. Thank you to everyone who came out tonight. 24-488, offered by the mayor, transfer and acquisition of rights in the public way. Dear President Paris, members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body approve the following transfer and acquisition of rights in a paper way. along Dexter Street, which will allow the mayor to enter into an agreement to release the city's rights to one half to the reference paper street in exchange for the city acquired rights to the other half of the same paper street. We have the building commissioner available to answer questions. And I'd like a motion to waive the remainder of the reading this is just seems highly technical and I'd like someone to explain it on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by second by Councilor Scott to waive the reading all those in favor. Opposed motion passes we'll go to the Commissioner. And are you representing the city. Great, we'll go to the Commissioner and then we'll go to you. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It's an interesting location.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great.
[Zac Bears]: And these are the properties on technically actually on East Albion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if you look at the state property map, you can see the paper way between 2 Joseph and then the city's parcel at 0 Albion. The three next to each other. Yeah, that are all abutting 86 Dexter, that long lot. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, we will go to the council. Are you council for the? Great. Great. Let me turn on your microphone. Just give us your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Seeing none, and it seems like everyone's on the same page here. I will go to Councilor Gallihan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Yeah. And it's right across the street from the Missittuck School in the Columbus Park. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: The motion passes. Thank you so much. Any further discussion unfinished business etc. Seeing none on the motion to adjourn. by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passed, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, Madam Chair. Again, I think we need to talk about what the process actually was in the RFP, which discussed us having specific public meetings around specific proposals for specific neighborhoods. This is a public meeting on the Mystic App proposal. We can talk about the process that got us here. Again, robust, extensive, comprehensive planning over two years. feedback from thousands of residents, et cetera. When you read the RFP, when you read the contract that was awarded, we talked about holding public process and public meetings throughout on specific proposals for specific areas. We've had multiple meetings to generate this. We're now having a meeting on the final draft proposal coming out of committee. It goes to council for automatic referral to Community Development Board, where there'll be another public hearing on this proposal. a community meeting, whatever we want to call it. There's public meetings ahead on this proposal specific to Mystic Avenue. And that's the process. So we are having the public meetings and engaging the residents. on these proposals based on the two plus years of public engagement and community engagement that's already happened to develop the city comprehensive plan. We're now executing on literally years of community process and engagement around this issue. We've heard from residents around Mystic Avenue multiple times on proposals and on the ideas of what was in the comprehensive plan. And now we have a draft. This public meeting is occurring. There will be the meeting to refer this to the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board will have a public hearing and at every step along the way, community members will be engaged and are being engaged in that process and will have continued voice even beyond the voice that's already been part of this process to inform this plan. So I don't know specifically what the request is. If it is to have a public meeting, That's happening and has happened and will continue to happen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just wondering, Paula, in the memo, you noted that we need a little more study on like what the community solar incentive would be. Are we thinking that that would be something that the research could be done like, well, this is being also at the public meetings for the Community Development Board and could maybe be included as a recommendation from the CD board or at the final council hearing on this? Or do we need more time than that?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: about how we communicate this process, and I mean this for all stakeholders here and those who have been part of this so far. We are doing a comprehensive update to the zoning ordinance. We're breaking that into pieces, as was discussed in the RFP, as was discussed in our first 13 meeting of this committee on this topic so far, because we want the public to be able to access the different pieces of the project as we move along. But instead of saying, I mean, we could have met, you know, 25, 30, 40 times, and then had a document at the end of it, you know, and had a 200 page document that here's the new zoning. I don't think anyone would have really been able to understand that in the way that this process is working. So that's why I think we just need to be really clear. And I think we need to tighten up a little bit how we're communicating this out, right? each of these stages as part of this comprehensive zoning update. Right now we're working on the Mystic Avenue Corridor District. That is the district boundaries. What uses do we want in that area? How does that align with the comprehensive plan and all the public participation up to this point? The goal of this committee, and I think we need to maybe really put out a very specific calendar and probably work through this together in our meeting. Um. Committee. You know, our steering meetings here of the goal was to have essentially two meetings a month. Where one meeting was discussing districts and one meeting was discussing global changes like what director Hunt said around parking, and I think we need to put out a calendar going forward that says. Here's the district that we're working on this month. here's the global change that we're working on this month. Here's the date and the time of that meeting. And, you know, the, and just really like lock that in and lock that down. I understand we need to have some flexibility as questions come up, but, um, I think putting that out is going to just behoove all of us to a, keep us on track, keep us on plan, but also to make sure that, um, folks feel communicated to about this and, So I just really think we should probably sit down in our next meeting and say, OK, November, we're finishing up the Salem Street corridor district. That's what we've already talked about. We're looking at this set of global plans. I think we're doing that in memos. And I think like those of us who are maybe like in this committee. and especially those who are in the steering part of the process understand what we're doing. I just don't think we're like putting that out in a communications way really effectively. So I just wanna think about how we can do that where we move forward from here. And also, I just wanna note, like, I appreciate that we can, you know, look at further studies and look at finding more grants for more studies and things like that, and I think that that's useful in some cases, but I think the goal of this process as outlined in the RFP is to do the comprehensive rezoning of the entire zoning ordinance and to rezone the city. And if there are studies that need to go longer than that, then I think we should think about that in the way that Director Hunt and Vice President Collins were just talking about, right? We can implement this change now. And if there's a study where we're not going to get the grant funding for a year, we can come back and further fine tune that. But I just want to make sure that we keep moving along this plan so that at the end of this process, we have that comprehensive zoning update that matches the goals and action items from the comprehensive plan And then that's the thing that can then be further updated, right? I think that's the base document for the city planning for the next 20 to 30 years. And then we'll have those additional studies and long-term pieces of things that will further inform tweaks and changes down the road as market conditions change or new industries pop up or whatever it may be. But I just think there's like a little bit of communications work that we can be doing that would go a long way. And so I hope that we can work on that going forward.
[Zac Bears]: And even more so, I think it's actually less granular. I think we've done that, but it's like a slide in a presentation or a paragraph or a section in a memo And I think, you know, I'm just thinking of like how people access information and, you know, if someone doesn't open the memo or watch the meeting or see the presentation, it's really more of a presentation question to me than anything else. Like, how do we take that information that we've already kind of discussed and put out a little more formally and turn what is a slide in a presentation into a flyer, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: took us on a bit of a tangent there. I appreciate everybody going through it. I did have one question going back to the development standards. I know that we're hoping, or the plan is that at the end, there's kind of a realignment of the development standards. And that probably coincides with the catching of like the artifacts and other quirks that end up happening because of the way that we're doing this. Would the intent of that be that there would be like a development standard section that's outside of the corridor specific sections and what basically would there then just be like a development standard section and then it would have the corridor separate breakdowns within them or just could we go a little bit more into that? Just want to clarify that for myself.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just wanted to say thanks, Martha, and I wanted to know what you just noted. Chair Collins, which is that, you know, the most recent, I mean, I think there's a few language changes that aren't yet up on the Civic Clerk website, but Um. Draft as a Friday on the map as a Friday are up at, um, our council agenda portal and attached his files there. Um. And appreciate the comment about flexibility. Um, it looks like. The C two. The zoning. I think it actually a but a commercial and an auto In Somerville, and then about so residential, but I think it's worth certainly. As this moves through the planning board, if they want to take a look at that, the community development board. Um, if there's something we could do there, but that math inspection site, and then the used auto shop immediately to it's. East those are actually in Somerville. Um, and it looks like there's, I can't quite read the summerville map right now. Um. or I can't quite tell exactly what they put there. It looks like it might be a mid-rise three district, because I have seen those very narrow, very thin housing units, which I've always been interested in. It seems like a great way to use an interesting lot for affordable housing. But there are actually auto uses on the Somerville side as well, abutting that C2 on Mystic Ave.
[Zac Bears]: Second. I also have a minor amendment
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just a slight language amendment to move to refer the draft Mystic Avenue zoning. Quarter district proposal. To the council. Next regular meeting. Um. So just be clear that it's the missing Avenue
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: So two years ago, a little past that. We had a little bit of a disagreement, I would say, the mayor and I, over the budget. And, you know, and I think it's important to sort of like, just be straight up, right? Council had some serious questions about the budget. We wanted to talk about an improved budget process. We wanted to talk about the underfunding issue. Council Vice President Collins and I were, had identified the need, the significant underfunding and the excuse of what type of funds to fund operating expenses. And that budget went to the last, I think, 2 a.m. meeting, the Mayor came out, and at the end of it, we made some improvements to the budget, and we talked about what we'd do the following year, and that budget actually passed, I think, unanimously, or at least the Councilor and I next to me voted for it at the end of the night. The next year we came back and we took a bit of a different approach, really focusing on what would a better budget process for the city look like. And what ended up happening, the council collectively again unanimously put forward a set of budget requests, budget demands in a sense. President Morell at the time, Nicole Morell and I went and met with the mayor and we sat down and we said, here's what the council wants. We want a better budget process, we want more funding for our schools, we want more funding for our library. And what we were able to negotiate on behalf of the council as council leadership with the mayor was three things. The formation of a financial task force, consisting of the leadership of the school committee, the city council, and the mayor, the commitment to establish a new budget process through a budget ordinance, which we passed this year and used in this year's budget, starting the process earlier than ever in the most transparent way possible, and the commitment to really address this issue of underfunding. And that's what the financial task force did. We've released, again, multiple press releases. We announced it at the budget time last year. We announced the formation of the task force, and then we announced
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think the Mayor can speak to it too, right? Just to get to this budget, we basically didn't do $3 million worth of looking at the Mayor for it, because she did approximately $3 million worth of stuff that we wanted to start doing this year about that on the city side. So, when you talk about having enough people to make sure that city government is performing its basic services, just another impact if it doesn't happen. You know, we're talking, I think you guys mentioned it before, right? Not only would we likely have to cut many of the things that are funded by one-time funds, but there certainly would not be an opportunity for the city to add a staff member in a key office. That's where it's currently needed. The other thing I just want to say, going quickly back to the grant side of things, grants are 99% of the time one-time or short-term funds. Whether it's one year, two years, or three years, eventually the It's not a sustainable way to fund a permanent operating budget. The reason we're talking about an override and talking about property taxes is because it is a permanent revenue source to fund ongoing expenses. And the great sad impact of Proposition 2.5 was that sustainable revenue went away. You know, DPW 40 years ago had twice as many people working here. Now we're talking about just having people to work there to fill potholes, because we don't even have that anymore. And I think that's a legacy both of the Proposition 2.5 law and 45 years of not being willing to say to the voters, yeah, this is hard, but we need to ask us to come together and fund these things. Otherwise, they're not going to get done. And as Dana mentioned, then it just snowballs and gets worse and worse and worse.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I just want to make kind of two points. I think what the mayor said about there are things that are not set in stone and need to be tweaked, I think that's important. I think we've heard from some folks that there are tweaks that they would like to see made. I think this question of the clean zones and the phasing for folks, firefighters coming back from a firefighter, from a fire. Some questions around showers and bunk space. But there's two things here. Voting yes on question six is about voting yes on a five and six mechanism, not a final design. The State Department of Revenue has very clear guidelines that say minor project changes, inflationary adjustments due to construction and timing can adjust the size of the bond slightly. It's not gonna jump from a $30 million bond to a $40 million bond. It's not gonna happen, but it might be from 30 to 31 or 32 if there are minor project changes that need to happen. So my hope is, as the mayor noted, there's a concept design. It's not a final design. There's been statements at the Council Q&A last week from firefighters around things that they would like to see different, and I think we can vote yes on the financing mechanism, and my hope would be that as the design moves from a concept design to a final design, those project changes can happen.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor mentioned earlier the exemptions available through the assessor's office. They are the maximum exemptions allowed by state law. Only state representatives and state senators can increase them. The council and the mayor's office have been really intentional about maximizing, making sure that we're doing the most that the state allows us to do, and then tying our own exemptions to the state law so that if it ever goes up, Medford's go up automatically. There's been some talk that seniors could be exempted. There's nothing in the Proposition 2 1⁄2 law that allows that. It just doesn't exist. It's not true. So it's a difficult situation. We are doing, as a city, the most that the state law allows us to do to try to protect all the people that the state law allows us to protect through exemptions. We have the deferral program. Yes, there's 5% interest on the deferral program, but again, that is what the state law allows. I think we maybe could reduce that to as low as 2%, something we could look at 4%, so we're at 5 and you go down to 4, thank you. We could look at that, but we'd still have to talk to assessing, you know, and what would the impact of that be? There's the work-off program, but again, I think Anna's point is incredibly restrictive about what it allows municipalities to do. I wish we had a very different local tax system that could much more target and direct the impact and who's paying what taxes, but we have a flat property tax with limited exemptions, and that's what the state wants.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to add to what Jenny said, you can also just not make decisions, right? And I think that's the other thing. Camps have been kicked out of the road for decades. Some good things have happened. There have been projects that have founded the norm. I think the new schools project is one of them. But most basic maintenance, basic staffing, fixing 100 Having enough staff to do the basic job of what a city needs to do has basically just not happened, and now that has created a massive debt that is coming due. It is a difficult inflection point, and it sounds like the library is closing soon. But there's another thing right there. Our library is not open on Sundays. Most libraries are. Our library closes early on Saturdays. You can find every department, every single thing that the city does. It's generally a little less than most other places because we don't have the funds to do it.
[Zac Bears]: October 15th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present. Thank you, Councilor Kellogg. Vice President Peralta.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 24479, resolution to celebrate Sarah Bradley Fulton Day. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we encourage residents to attend the celebration of Sarah Bradley Fulton Day on Saturday, October 19th, 2024. Be it further resolved that we thank Laura Duggan and the city employees and volunteers who make this day possible. More information can be found at lookingbackatmedfordhistory.com. This is my paper. I'll just add there's also a reception at the library on Friday night. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 2-4-4-8-0. You know what? Motion to table this to the next meeting, if that's acceptable to anyone here. I can't make the motion. Can anyone make it?
[Zac Bears]: So I moved. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to table that to the next meeting, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The motion to join and approve the approval of the records and reports of committees. Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli, how do you find the records? Thank you. Anyone who wants to comment on any of the committee reports? All right, all those in, we need another vote. On the motion to approve records and committee reports, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed, motion passes. Oh, was it a first joining up? Sorry, my bad. 24483, offered under suspension by Vice President Collins, be resolved at the Medford City Council hearing, update from the representatives. All right. What number? Okay. Are you withdrawing that paper? Are you withdrawing paper 24483? All right, paper 24483 is withdrawn. On the motion to suspend the roll to take paper 24482 by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24482, offered under suspension by the entire Medford City Council, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we hold a moment of silence in honor of our beloved City Messenger, Lawrence Lepore, who passed away last night from cancer, an Army veteran, Larry loved, lived, and breathed Medford. He loved City Hall. He loved his job as city messenger, and he loved working with this council and his colleagues in the clerk's office. He was a calming and steady presence at council meetings, and he provided wise counsel to anyone who sought his advice. We offer our deepest and most sincere condolences to Larry's family, to his friends, and to all who loved him, be it further resolved that the Medford City Council dedicate tonight's meeting in Larry's memory. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Saint, then Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: You want to go? All right. Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm gonna go to Kevin Harrington from Medford Community Media, Kevin. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kevin. I have some words from former President Morell here. She was hoping to be here, but I think in fitting for Larry, we had a long night. She says, I want to send my deepest condolences to Larry's family, to thank them for sharing Larry with the city all these years. who's an incredible steward of the city council and the chambers and was so dedicated to his role. He'll be truly missed both as an individual and for all he brought to this body. And I get the difficult task of going last, but Larry once said to me, so long as you're not throwing chairs at each other, it's a good night. Because I think he saw someone almost throw a chair at someone. maybe this side to this side. I think anyone who's only sat on this side has missed out sitting over here and seeing Larry's face and being able to make that eye contact with him. And sitting up here too, it's been interesting the first few months of this term, but I didn't get to know Larry as well as I wanted. I've known him for five years. The first few years were the pandemic. We were on Zoom. Larry's still coming to my house every day, every Friday, bringing the papers and whatnot, but didn't get uh, really to get to know him until we were back here and we were able to talk more before and after meetings during expected and unexpected recesses. Um, but I always like to think of it kind of how Councilor Scarpelli did. If you were hearing words of encouragement from Larry, he didn't have a great day, but he, he presented it in a nice way. If you're having words of respect from Larry, you had a decent day. He did. All right. And if you had words of pride from Larry, you had a really good day. And I was lucky enough to experience all three. I probably have a warped sense in my mind that may be more pride than encouragement, but it was really just helpful to be able to talk to Larry about just have all that knowledge, decades of knowledge of this body and these meetings, to talk to someone with a different perspective on a lot of issues, but then find a lot of common ground. And I know that he will be missed by this body, by the former members, by a lot of people in City Hall and certainly by his family. He was just a really wonderful, kind, caring person who I really enjoyed spending time with in the limited ways that I was able to. And I know there are a lot of people who got to enjoy a lot more time with Larry who aren't going to be able to share that time with him anymore. So I'm thinking of them because if I feel this way, I can only imagine how they feel. Thank you. The motion of everybody. Oh, we have some people to speak. Yes, public participation will take you.
[Zac Bears]: We don't, but we'll share it and the clerk's office will make it available and we'll get it around when we know more. And we're trying to also make sure that the city provides as many honors as we can provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Is there someone who can make Zack Bares and Andy Castagnetti and George Scarpelli all cry? That's a good guy. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Bobby, do you want to say anything? On the motion, I just, it looked like you stood up to speak. Did you want, all right, got it. Thanks, Bob. On the motion to approve and have a moment of silence by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. We'll take a moment of silence. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. President Pierce? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: All those in favor? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All right, I'll be quick, and Aaron can get home. Thank you to Aaron and Bill from the Election Commission for being here. We have our two calls to election, which we gotta get out the door. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such of the inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the state election on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024, to assemble at the polling places. in their respective wards and precincts, and then to give their votes for President and Vice President, Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Councilor, Senator in General Court, Representative in General Court, Clerk of Courts, Register of Deeds, and that the polls of said state election shall be open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m., be it further order that the following name polling places be in or hereby ordered designated for use at the state election on November 5th, Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School. Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club. Ward 2, Precinct 1 and Ward 2, Precinct 2, Roberts Elementary School. Ward 3, Precinct 1, Medford American Legion. Ward 3, Precinct 2, Temple Shalom. Ward 4, Precinct 1, Tufts University, Gantry Center, rear. Ward 4, Precinct 2, Walkling Court, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5, Precinct 1 and 5, Precinct 2, Missittuck Elementary School. Ward 6, Precinct 1, West Medford Fire Station. Ward 6, Precinct 2, Brooks Elementary School. Ward 7, Precinct 1, Mystic Valley Towers. Ward 7, Precinct 2, McGlynn Elementary School. Ward 8, Precinct 1, Medford Senior Center. And Ward 8, Precinct 2, South Medford Fire Station. And we also have the election warrant, uh, which is largely the same thing, but, uh, from the residents of the city greetings, we are required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said town or qualified to vote in elections to vote at the polling places. I just listed on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 2024 from 7am to 8pm. for the following purposes to cast their votes in the state election, for the candidates of the political parties for the following offices, President and Vice President, Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Councilor for the 6th District, Senator in General Court for the 2nd Middlesex. I'll go to the Actions Commission if they have anything they'd like to add.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Member DiBenedetto and Member O'Keefe. We appreciate it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve, Should we, I think we should probably take a roll call on each paper, just given the nature of it. I'm going to throw a chair. Great. Great. That's what we like to hear. Clean, fair, and well-staffed elections. All right, on the motion on paper 24447, the call for election. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative, none negative. The motion passes on paper 24478, the election warrant. Motion to approve. Motion approved. Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative and then I give a motion passes. Thank you very much. Good luck. Early voting starts on Saturday, right? Yes. All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take papers 24472 and 244, 24, sorry, what is that? 4-5-7. 4-5-7, all right. Good night, thank you. All right, all those in favor, or second by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24472, petition for grant of location, National Grid, Hale Avenue. So this is not the one that was on the table. You are hereby notified, sorry, notice for public hearing, petition of grant of location, National Grid. . Thank you. Medford MA, motion to waive the reading for summary. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. This is a proposal, public hearing on Tuesday, October 15th, 7 p.m. Zoom link posted no later than Friday, petitioned by Boston Gas DBA National Grid for installing a new gas main in Hale Avenue, plan marked W01530950 Hale Avenue, Medford MA, date of July 20th, 2023, The purpose of this position is to install approximately 160 feet of new gas main in Hill Street in accordance with plan DPL MED 080248-1043 filed in the office of the city clerk. This has been approved by the chief engineer, city engineer with the following conditions. The engineering division recommends this grant application be approved with the following conditions. Granted location is limited to the approximately 160 feet of four inch gas main depicted on the plan. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify DigSafe and obtain all applicable permits from engineering division. Project must obtain a trench permit pertinent to section 74-141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, or other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall insure all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to excavation. Project site must be swept daily after installation or daily, shall be kept free of debris for the duration of installation, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project. National Grid must coordinate and better communications with the Director of Communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. call 7, 8, 1, 3, 9, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5 for any aids accommodation sign out about her to be city clerk. All right. With that, um, we'll hear from the petitioner and then we'll open the public hearing. Welcome. Thank you for sticking with us.
[Zac Bears]: OK. Any questions by members of the council for the petitioner? I gotta open a public hearing. Whereas this is a public hearing, I'll open the public hearing to people in favor, opposed, or otherwise having an opinion on this matter. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Petitioner in favor. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I got a close public hearing first, but then we'll take it. Sorry Anyone else either here on zoom who would like to speak during the public hearing? Seeing none the public hearing is closed on the motion of vice president Collins seconded by councillor scarpelli to approve With the conditions by the city engineer Mr. Clerk, please call the roll
[Zac Bears]: This is the request for amendment to previously approved grant location National Grid on Main Street in City Council September 10th, 2024 tabled. I believe we tabled to go to Councilor Tseng, who had some questions. So we'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: All right. We believe we have representatives from The team here will hear from the petitioner if there's anything you want to add to the record from prior discussions of the matter.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a follow up. Have there been any power outages of that nature recently that have... Not recently, no. When was the last one that you have? I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: At least a couple of years.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And when was that?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just, I was wondering if the engineer Could you state what the position of the engineering department is relative to the amendment request?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Given the potential, I'll just leave it at that. I mean, it is what it is. We have a motion on the floor. Vice President Collins, it was to not accept the amendment, to deny the request, seconded by Councilor Callahan. At this point, I'm just going to reopen the public hearing. public hearing is open. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposed request for amendment, opposed to the proposed request for amendment, or otherwise want to speak on the request for amendment? I think you're in favor of the request.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Anyone else on this item? Seeing none, we have a motion from Vice President Collins. to deny the request for amendment, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the, well, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Mr. Clerk, on the proposed denial by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Is that, it's a motion to deny, yes. A yes vote is a motion to deny the request for amendment.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The request for amendment is denied. Thank you for your time. 24473 Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request. Council, let me move to refer the paper with items to the next regular council meeting. That was at our October 2nd, I believe, Committee of the Whole. Paper is from the mayor. Dear President Bears, members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable Body approves the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Replacement of the water heater at the Brooks Elementary School in the amount of $267,000. Roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. Replacement of light poles in city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. City Hall elevator repair unforeseen costs due to upgrades of electrical and fire alarm systems needed for code compliance in the amount of $75,000. Repairs of the Brooks Estate Use of funds must comply with city procurement policies and procedures and state procurement law. $5,000 as your honorable body knows the capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of 400. Yeah, I'm just gonna, it's more like two sentences out has a balance of $4,538,465 given the appropriations made September 17, 2024. If all the above are approved, the capital stabilization fund would have $3,923,737. That remains any appropriation from any stabilization account required the two thirds majority vote of the city council. We discussed this. We have a committee report. We asked our questions. Does anyone have any further questions or comments on this matter? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion? Any discussion in public participation? I will go to Mr. Castagnetti. Is this on the stabilization fund? Then we'll go to you in just a minute. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take from the table for a third reading, Papers 23449, the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance, and 24458, Establishing an Electric Vehicle Charging Revolving Fund. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 23449, Wildlife Feeding Ordinance. Approved for first reading September 10th, 2024. Advertised September 26th, 2024. Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal. Eligible for third reading October 15th, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve for third reading and ordain by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: So find voters any way we can, huh? I can only see the ways that would go. 24458, motion to establish electric vehicle charging revolving fund. I think that was Shane throwing things at the door, please asking us to leave. Or the rats, one or the other. 24458, establishing an electric vehicle charging revolving fund. Approved for first reading September 10th, 2024. Advertised September 26th, 2024. Meant for transcript of the Summerville Journal. Eligible for third reading October 15th, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve for third reading and ordain. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Just say abstain. I have to abstain because Councilor Scarpelli offered me a cut. No, I vote yes. Six in the affirmative, one present. The motion passes. I rented one, I don't think I'm buying one. All right, anything else? Public participation. We'll go to Mr. Cassanetti and Mr. Jones if you want it. All right. Name and address for the record, please, Mr. Cassanetti. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're here for the squirrels and we're here for the rats. Thank you, Mr. Cassinetti. On the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. 24475 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a question and answer session to discuss the definitions and terminology regarding the proposed Proposition 2.5 overrides and the proposed debt exclusion measure. To that resolution, the following amendments were added. Councilor Scarpelli asked that the administration and Council on Aging do outreach to seniors about this meeting. Councilor Callahan requested outreach to parents of school-aged children, not just teachers, and specifically requested outreach to the PTOs. Councilor Tseng requested general outreach and specifically requested that the community liaisons translate into other languages the information that is on the city website about the overrides and the debt exclusion. To ensure that the council is able to answer questions in a timely manner and that decorum is maintained, the council president, myself, will be enforcing the following rules. One, members of the public will have one minute to ask one question. Members of the public will not be able to ask a second question until all who seek to ask a question have had the chance to ask their first question. The president will verbally request that residents not ask duplicative or largely similar questions to questions that have already been answered. and may move to the next question if a duplicative or similar question is asked. Each Councilor will have up to two minutes to answer per question. The president will verbally request the Councilors not answer if a duplicative or largely similar answer has been given by another Councilor and may move to the next question if a duplicative or similar answer is given. After members of the public have had the chance to ask their first question, the president will open the floor to either a second question or a short public comment by members of the public in attendance. And before we start, I just want to say, that the council itself is in mourning today. Last night, we lost our city messenger, Larry Lepore, who has served us for many years. We will be having some condolence remarks made at our regular meeting that will begin after our committee of the whole meeting. So I hope that folks will stick around if you knew Larry or otherwise to say a kind word or story that you may have shared with him during his many years serving the city behind this rail. With that, I do want to invite our city assessor, Ted Costigan. The council had requested some answers and updates from him, and I know that he's here to share some information that his office has been working on. So with that, I will go to our assessor, Ted Costigan.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. And then we'll go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. And per council, you mean legal council? I don't know that I was on that email.
[Zac Bears]: Was I on that? I believe it was.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you. She means legal counsel, right? Yeah. All right. Good. I didn't want her to think about this council. All right. Thank you. Um, with that, I'll go to our city assessor and let me know when you want me to put slides up. The new mics are coming on Thursday. Shane's going to come out. He's going to fix it. I hear the chair moving. Thanks, Shane.
[Zac Bears]: There we go. Thank you, shane.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sure, and just thanks, Ted, I wanna appreciate your hard work getting this done. In October, it usually gets done in January, so it's appreciated. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Ted. Just two more questions. One, given your estimates, if neither of the overrides pass based on your estimates, the tax rate would once again be going down.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And before today, when you had the approved fiscal 25 values, would it have been possible for anyone to provide an update using anything other than the fiscal 24 values or an estimate? Anyone from the public, not from your office.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Any further questions from members of council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So we're going to say that happens every year.
[Zac Bears]: Generally, the CPA was included in the calculations presented.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Ted. Really appreciate the hard work of your office. Just want to note, certainly this council, and you've shared some recently, has taken several votes to maximize the exemptions allowed by state law. If you see anything more that we could do on that front, I believe in 2022, we voted to tie it to the law so that we wouldn't have to constantly be updating it as the state did. If you see anything, please let us know. Certainly our intent is to be maximizing everything, and I believe we have.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. We will do that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm going to read off the rules one more time. We're going to move to question and answer. All right, so we're gonna follow the following rules for this part of the meeting. Members of the public will have one minute to ask one question. Members of the public will not be able to ask a second question until everyone has had a chance to ask their first. I'm gonna verbally request that we not ask duplicative or largely similar questions and may move on to the next question. If a duplicative or similar question is asked, Councilors will have up to two minutes per Councilor to answer each question. I'm requesting the Councilors not provide duplicative or largely similar answers to answers that have been already provided by other Councilors and may move on to the next Councilor for an answer if that happens. And after members of the public have had the chance to ask their first question, we'll open the floor to a second question or a short public comment. And I'm going to be alternating between the chamber and Zoom. So we will start at the podium. Mr. Castagnetti, you'll have one minute to ask a question and then we'll go to Zoom after answers from Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: You got your minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Andy, thank you. That's a minute.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead and say the sentence minutes up.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just hold on here, guys. Like, I can't believe we're doing this on the first question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Does anyone have a response? Your time. Anyone want to answer the question? Councilor Lemke, you have two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll move on to the next question, unless anyone else has an answer. Thank you, Andy. We'll go to Michelle B on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Vice President Collins, then
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Just gonna say a few things really quick. The council, oh, I'll go to, okay, I'll wait. Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, nope, one time, sorry. It's question eight, yeah. And any other councilors wanna go? I'll be quick, give myself two minutes. I just want to list it out. Two literacy interventionists, two behavior specialists, one nurse, four teachers, and four department heads. Those were cuts that were postponed because we used one-time funds this year to plug the hole. There's another 25 positions, two school Councilors, four classroom teachers, two security monitors, One attendance and re-engagement officer, five paraprofessionals, and 12.2 additional staff members that are on one-time federal funds this year. So it's about 35 to 45 staff in the schools. We would not have a permanent dedicated street and sidewalk crew to use the machines that we already own. We don't have enough staff in the DPW to actually run those machines four times a week. And there would not be significant room for looking at additional compensation for educators, paraprofessionals, and staff in our schools, whether that's just to raise their pay, because it's a contract year, or whether that is when we're talking about extending potentially 10 to 15 minutes to school day to align vocational with the comprehensive high school schedule. or just to address any issues on time on learning. So thanks. That's what we would lose. We will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: So that's not actually how the tax rates calculated. The assessor just presented the information. The levy changes based on the two and a half and new growth. So it's only about 6 million this year, not 13 million. And generally that amount is only going towards fixed costs. So we have union contracts, increasing health insurance costs, increasing retirement pension costs, increased costs of materials and pavement. So that's generally what the normal two and a half new growth increase goes towards.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Does anyone else want to answer that question?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions from answers from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the next question on zoom. We'll go to Lizzie Charbonneau. Lizzie, you have one minute to ask one question. Please provide your name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So let me thank you. Thank you. Go to Councilor Scarpelli of two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, thank you. The train's gonna zoom in on it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think everybody went on that. I'd like to avoid everybody answering every question if we can at all possible, but everyone did give a different answer, which is appreciated context. I'm just going to be brief myself to ignore my own advice and say, light poles are falling down. We had a meeting two weeks ago where a light pole fell on a public way, and luckily it happened at night, so it didn't hit a car or a person and hurt them. I mean, that's the situation that we're in. We have finally, appropriated some funds to a capital stabilization fund. We have a paper on the meeting at seven o'clock to look at that. We are in a historic multi-decade deficit where we have massive needs. The free cash that is being spoken of is spoken for. It is spoken for, it needs to go to our roads, it needs to go to our schools, it needs to go to fix things that are already broken. And thank you, please stop, thank you. And that's just reality. If we use that to plug operating budget holes, we'll have to plug those holes with new revenue in the future. We can't wait for the new growth from our new zoning, which will take five to 10 years to propagate. And I don't think any of us want more light posts falling in the sink, we certainly should be grateful that so far they've only been falling at night. Thank you. We'll go to the podium for the next question. You have one minute to ask one question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. Would anyone like to answer the question? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other one? No, that's all I have.
[Zac Bears]: Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Rick, Rick, come on, Rick.
[Zac Bears]: Don't shout in this room. You know better and you wouldn't take it if you were, you wouldn't take it if you were sitting up here, Rick. Don't, let's not go down this road. Come on, everyone, stop. Let's not go down this road, guys. It's really not needed. Councilor Callahan, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we'll go back to two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Wrong. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Tell them the truth, Councilor. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. As a member of the financial task force, it was very clear. We actually had a lot of public meetings called fiscal 23 budget process, fiscal 24 budget process, fiscal 25 budget process. I think a lot of folks remember if you're watching those meetings, me sitting in that chair in 2022 and being pretty hard on this mayor because we didn't have the information that we needed. and working to establish a task force, working to establish a budget ordinance, working to establish a flow of information, and hear from stakeholders, all the stakeholders that were mentioned in the question. What do we need? What are we not seeing happen? Why are we in the situation that we're in? That resulted this year in the earliest budget process we've had with meetings before we got the budget, input from the council and the public before the mayor presented a budget, and a full and accounting of what our serious structural deficit is for our schools and for this city. We know that we need more money to do what people want the city to do. We're asking the voters to do that, and that's what it is. If the voters say no, then we will have to make cuts, and we will do that, because that is what the voters decided. If the voters choose to vote yes, then we will have the financial resources that we need to do our jobs. That is essentially what happened, and that is essentially the choice before us as a community. When we want to talk about the financial task force, was announced in a public meeting. There are a bunch of public releases from that. Every step of the way, we're starting to meet. Here's what we're talking about. Here's what we're considering for the framework. Here is the final framework. The specifics were discussed extensively in council meetings and school committee meetings for a year, that these were our budget needs. Thank you. We'll go to the podium for the next question. Mr. Jones, name and address the record. You have a minute for your question.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm going to give you another 15 seconds. I just want to say for folks who have joined since I started the meeting, We're going to be talking about Larry at our meeting after this, and I hope folks have something they want to share. We'll stick around. We want to hear.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so there was no- It was Councilor Morell before January. Councilor Morell, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Just, I wanted to answer your question. Okay. I think you heard a good story, but the fact of the matter is, There were five members of the financial task force, the council president, the council vice president, the chair of the school committee, who's the mayor, the vice chair of the school committee, and the chief of staff for the mayor, who administratively runs city hall. Those were the members of the task force. Those were the members of the task force. Did we talk to other people? Absolutely. The $3 million number comes from the school finance director from the fiscal 25 budget process. $500,000 number for the DPW street and sidewalk group comes from the DPW commissioner. The $4 million number for the question eight, that comes also from the fiscal 25 and 24 school budget process from the finance director, from many of the administrators in the Medford public schools talking about, this is what we need to do the things that people are asking us to do. And the $30 million bond number for the fire headquarters came from the mayor, the chief of staff, and the fire chief based on the design process for the new headquarters. That's where it came from. It's not a bubble. It's not we didn't talk to anybody. It's not we made things up. There have been documented meetings. We talked to other people. We engaged the folks who have the information in the city and said, if we're trying to address these problems, what would it cost? And that's what the proposals are. I mean, it's plain as day. We have, again, public statements and documents for a year talking about the process, the membership, the framework, and the final result. We have budget meetings and documents for over two and a half, three years, dozens of recordings of this body and the school committee talking about these needs. So I encourage folks to look at the last three budget processes, because they'll pretty much get you exactly the numbers that you'll see on the ballot on November 5th. And that's why we're asking voters to vote yes. Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you. We'll go to Zoom for the next question. We'll go to Zoe Moutsos. One minute to ask your question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to members of the council to answer that question. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: They're not needed right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Calihan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Councilor Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else from the council want to go on this question? Just to Councilor Leming's point, there was the $34 million certified balance at the end of June. $6 million went to a stabilization fund. $5 million went to a capital stabilization fund. $1 million of that has already been spent on emergency capital repairs. $3 million went to the MSBA feasibility study. The mayor also outlined an additional $9.5 million, $2.5 million for fire department fleet replacements, $2 million for the pension liability, which we have to fund by 2034. $2 million per year for fiscal year 25 capital improvements, $2 million for fiscal year 26 capital improvements, $1 million to match federal and state money to renovate the Hegner Center. We also have the estimated $15 million that we heard the other week from Assistant Superintendent Cushing to fix the HVAC at the Andrews Middle School and McGlynn K-8 school. Councilor Callahan has noted the $67 million in road debt, $35 million in sidewalk debt, People have noted the school water issue. As Mr. Belson said, we made money on those schools, but apparently we did it because we didn't put the right stuff in for water. So I just spent all 35 million right there on things that are urgent, right there. We're still gonna have to prioritize these urgent capital needs with that free cash and stabilization fund money.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's plus there's the money in the stabilization funds. Yeah, I just went beyond that though.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a scare tactic. It's just math. It's just math. That is the need of the community. I could not name you a community in the state. Is that the math that the task force has? Councilor Scavalli, please don't interrupt me. Thank you. I don't interrupt you. Please don't interrupt me. Thank you. Those are the figures. Those are our needs. Those are the capital needs of the community. So I think, The math is pretty clear. Go to the podium for our next question. One minute, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone wanna go for that? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's just a clarification. It's not a follow-up, thank you. What's the question?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we're not doing that, so I'd appreciate it. What? We're just asking one question.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go, we'll think about it. Who's next? Councilor Leming. I'm just trying to enforce the rules. Let me rephrase that. I'll think about it. Councilor Leming. Oh, we're giving the answers. Councilor Leming, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else wanna answer the question? Sure, Mr. President, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 30 seconds? Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. What is it? You're over by 20 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: No. You'll get it on the next round, I'm sure. I'm sure you'll get it on the next round. I appreciate it. Anyone else want to comment here from the council? You already went, Vice President Collins, sorry. No one gets mad when I don't let Councilor Collins talk. I'm just trying to enforce the rules here. If you have a quick clarification on the kind of data you're asking for, I'd be interested to hear it.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer that and I'll put my clock on. So for much of it, for the school budget, yes. The school budget director outlined in the budget meetings in April and May and June, this is what would be cut if we didn't have these funds. And this is what would have to be cut if we don't have these funds in the future. So in that case, it is an exact one-to-one. And that's true for all of question seven. When we talk about the DPW, the director said, to run the machines four days a week instead of two or four days a month, I need this much staff, this is how much that crew would cost. Absolutely. For the debt exclusion for the fire station, Councilor Scarpelli already noted, right, we have bond capacity, we're maxed on our bond capacity, we have a library on the bond capacity, we have a police station on the bond capacity, we have school, MHS labs on the bond capacity, we're pretty much maxed on the bond capacity here. And, okay, well,
[Zac Bears]: You're wrong. It's in the budget. You're wrong. I'm not wrong. I read the thing. So when we talk about the information that's available to the public, there's information from the school budget process, from the city budget process that outlines these needs very clearly. There have been charts and tables and narratives and whatever other form of data analysis you want has likely been presented at these meetings. So there is information out there, there is data out there, and when we talk about the decisions made by the financial task force, while other members of the city staff were not members of the financial task force, they were consulted, these issues were discussed with them. So that is what it is. And we can continue to try to present the math and information in a different way. And I'm sure that we will continue to try to get that information out there as best as possible. But the city has incredible needs, significant needs, and funding is needed to meet them. Thank you. I only have one hand raised on Zoom, but it's iPhone 109. If you would please rename yourself so that we know that you're a person, I'll then recognize you. Until then, I'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute for your questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone wanna go for it? I can do the financial task force part. Anyone wanna talk about the sufficiency of the size of the override? Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else want to go on this? Councilor Scarpelli, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, one second. We're still answering the question from Mr. Givino. I saw Councilor Saint and Councilor Collins, and I have an answer about the financial task force.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I think I got it on the task force. Thanks Mr. Gimeno for the question. So when we talk about sufficiency of the override, in the public documents that have been repeatedly asserted don't exist, but are of course public and on the website, the financial task force has said that we believe that this override and debt exclusion is sufficient. along with whatever needs to be done for the high school, which we all knew always was going to be an independent question to allow the city's planning and development work based on the comprehensive plan and the zoning recodification and ongoing zoning work to take effect to begin to raise the funds. So yes, right now in the public documents that have been released, I think both the March document and the June document talk about that question. We believe that not only is this the best path forward for the city's financial health, but that the amounts are sufficient that we would not be coming back in the next five to 10 years outside of a Medford High School question to address the city's financial health and challenges. When it comes to the Financial Task Force question, Financial Task Force was not a public body, did not include, for example, members of the public, appointed citizens, etc. It was an internal body to City Hall. similar to project meetings in different departments, interdepartmental groups designed for different projects. So that is why it was held internally and not in publicly posted meetings and public meetings. I'm gonna go to Zoom. We have Deanne I. You have one minute for a question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I think you said 451, but it sounds like you got the 51 right, so it may have been a misspeak.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, sometimes we just have a little misspeak. All right, anyone wanna answer those questions? I can get money where the money goes, but if anyone else wants to go for it. All right, in terms of where the money goes, $3 million from Question 7 goes to Medford Public Schools to replace $1.7 million in one-time funds that were used for Fiscal 25 to cover positions to address the inclusion of federally funded pandemic aid positions and to address maintenance costs, $500,000 would go to DDPW to hire staff to have a permanent in-house road and sidewalk repair crew, and $4 million would go to the school to address a number of issues, mainly collectively bargained issues around pay for teachers, paraprofessionals, staff, addressing the issue of the school day, and potentially also addressing issues such as coaches, stipends, and transportation, depending on what is prioritized during the next budget process. And for question six, that is dedicated to a new fire station.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Callahan. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's what I ask all of you. So thank you. Appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: It is a sustainable source of revenue.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, specifically it would be appropriated if they were passed, there would be an appropriation in the first year. The appropriation would be as outlined in the ballot questions in future years, budgets would have to be cut in order to reappropriate those funds. So, um, and I don't think anyone behind this rail has ever supported cutting teachers or the school budget.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. I can go to other folks, but I do have the answer, I think. So in terms of the temporary versus permanent, question six is a debt exclusion. So it's temporary in the sense that there's the $30 million amount for the bond. The $2 billion that you cited is an estimate for the annual debt service cost. That estimate was created to try to give folks an understanding of what that might look like on an annual basis on their tax impact. So that's a temporary until the bond is paid off. For question seven and eight, those would be permanent. Those are overrides intended to be permanent increases to the levy limit to fund ongoing operations. In terms of the line items, I believe there is a page on the city website right now that does outline the specifics that I just said in terms of the 3 million for the MPS and 500,000 for the DPW in question seven and the 4 million in question eight. I can look at seeing if the city might be able to also add a graphic there, but I believe if you go to medfordma.org, there's a button right on the front page that says override information, and it does outline the line items for each specific question to the greatest extent possible.
[Zac Bears]: So we do, it would be 3.5 million for question seven and 4 million for question eight.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And that's the max, it can't go higher than that. And those are not funding any sort of bonds or debt exclusions. Those are for the override. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: That's not the format here. We'll take public comment at the end.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just on the point about question six, Department of Revenue guidelines, it can be for the bonded amount. It's not written into the question. That's because of how the Proposition 2.5 law is written. but it is for the $30 million plus minor project changes. It is not a blank check. It is not just an open thing. Department of Revenue has extent, the State Department of Revenue has extensive guidelines on this. So if there are minor project changes or construction related inflation adjustments, those could be included, but they have to be minor. If there's a significant increase to the budget, it would have to either be going out for another bond funded by another revenue source or funded by an additional debt exclusion vote of the people. Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. We have Christina Roberts. Christina, you have one minute to ask your question. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have a minute to ask your questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. We'll go to members of the Council. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just getting there if we could just maintain decorum. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Um, I mean, I can answer the question more specifically or vice president Collins, but, um, if you don't mind, mine is on a different part of the question. This what?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. On this specific question, when we were looking at the financial state of the city, we said, what is the biggest capital obligation that the city is going to have over the next five to 10 years, other than a high school, which we've excluded from everyone acknowledges is such a big project needs to be handled on its own. It was a new fire headquarters. We can get into the back and forth dispute over should there have been a combined headquarters? Should this have been 10, 10 years ago? Those, quite frankly, were decisions that were made before I was even thinking about running for office. When we looked at that, we said, that's the biggest expense. If we ask the voters to do that as a debt exclusion, it means that bond capacity is available for many of the other things that we've talked about. Now we looked at that. There has been an owner's project manager hired by the mayor. The mayor has controlled the design process, has included, my understanding, chiefs, has not included the union or firefighters to the level that they've wanted to be included, and has never included this council in the design process. We're not part of the design process for the fire station. We made a decision based on the financial health of the community, based on the estimates provided by the designer, the mayor, and the fire chief, that a $30 million fire station is what they think will need to be built. The design is not finalized. My understanding is that changes can and are being made. But to us, it was a separate question. The design process is not something that this council has been involved in. But the financial health of the community is obviously something that we work on during the budget process. And so identifying this project as what should be funded by a debt exclusion was how we made that decision.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you for this question. All right, we'll go to I'm a little wary. Bill on Zoom, if you could provide a last name or a last initial, we'll go to the podium. Damon, address record, you have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I mean, I will give you I wasn't expecting you to go around the rules here. My point was not that the people involved did a bad job. My point was clearly this was an issue that was missed. And there was a comment made by someone very involved in those projects at a political event, quote, we made money. And I think that that's just something that should be entertained as maybe also maybe not representing the work or the goals of that committee. Thank you. So you can have your question.
[Zac Bears]: I've sat down with some people who are on that committee. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Thank you very much. You have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. I know I'm going to go for that two minutes. Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're not going back and forth. Anyone else want to go on this question? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. We, we can talk about water sewer infrastructure for another couple hours if we want. Um, it's a big problem. Anyone else have a answer? Mr. Lenders question. Sure. Councilor Scarpelli two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just to get specific, when we talk about the needs in the classroom, 85% of the school budget is salaries and staff, 15% is non-salary and staff expenses. Likely the vast majority of both of these questions through collective bargaining will end up going to either hiring more staff or paying existing staff more. The specifics outlined in the fiscal 25 budget process by the schools are eight classroom teachers, five paraprofessionals, two literacy interventionists, two behavior specialists. I think those are all significant impact on the students in the room. A nurse, a school administrative assistant at the McGlynn, which right now is operating with one administrative assistant instead of two for a complex of over 1,000 kids. We could say those aren't in the classroom, but I think we know those would help. in the classroom and help kids as well. So those are the real life impacts of what this would go to fund, nevermind the idea of paying paraprofessionals a living wage, hiring more staff to reduce class sizes or other things that would be possible through the collective bargaining process with the teachers union and the paraprofessionals union. We'll go to Zoom. We have Bill O'Brien, name and address for the record. You have a minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone have questions or answers on that? Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Sure, Mr. President, if I can. Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Number one, I appreciate your comments, Councilor Collins. Number two, I wanna say very clearly to the question, why did we pass the budget? When I'm talking about, someone have their phone on, someone watching in the room? If you could take that out of the room, please. Well, you gotta, just don't wanna have it backlogging in the, thank you. Just to be clear, to answer the question, when we're talking about collective bargaining agreements, we're talking about future contracts, not current contracts. As was noted, that's not recommended by, I think, councilors who disagree on the substance, it's not recommended to use free cash for operating budget issues. Certainly it's not recommended to use free cash to negotiate contracts. So we're talking about the capacity of the city to negotiate future contracts. I think that was the question asked by Mr. O'Brien. We'll go to the podium, name and address the record. You have one minute to ask your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're over by about 20 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. Anyone want to take it? Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Callahan. All right. Please stop interrupting the proceedings. Thank you. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know. It looks like she left. Oh, sorry. All right. Good.
[Zac Bears]: Talking with the assessor's office, their estimate is that given declining interest rates for municipal bonds, given the contingency already in the project, and also the DLS, sorry, DOR, State Department of Revenue guidelines around debt exclusions, that it would essentially stay around the $30 million total cost for the debt service, for the bond, yeah. Yeah, but the interest rate would be, set when the debt is issued. We'll go to Zoom, Sharon Diesso. Oh, sorry, you wanna go? Sorry, I didn't see your hand. Go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli. Sharon, you have to wait a minute.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone's saying that.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to Sharon or Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Sharon Diesso. You have one minute. Name and address for the record, please. Please ask your one question.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a question, Sharon? You have 10 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sharon. I'm just following the rules, guys. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath before groaning. Anyone wanna go? Councilor Scarpelli, anybody?
[Zac Bears]: Her question was, what were the alternatives that could have been found that are not the overrides and debt exclusions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on these questions? Councilor Callahan? Councilor Tseng? Okay. Just to be brief, you know, we have had for the last three years, the best three years of new growth in the city in the last 25 years. Those are just, again, the facts. They're on the DLS webpage. We can't disagree with data and mathematics. Data and mathematics are not fear tactics. They are just the facts. Alternatives, there was no way in the short to medium term to raise reliable, recurring, sustainable revenue to fund operating budget expenses, except for asking the voters to fund those expenses through an override. The property tax levy is the vast majority of the money that the city brings in. The state is not providing the city with significant new aid. The city departments go above and beyond finding federal and state grants. They are looking far and wide for them. Just because we don't receive them doesn't mean we didn't apply for them. And to be honest, a lot of the formulas and ways that those things are decided are not favoring places like Medford. because the state school formula looks at our city and they say, Oh, they should pay more in property taxes. We're not going to send them more state aid. That's literally how the formula is written. It's based on capacity for a city to do so. So when we are 93rd out of 97 for property tax revenue, when we are 94th out of 97 for per capita spending, we are where we are. The state's judges us based on that reality and says, we're not giving them more money. So, Again, we came together over dozens of public meetings over three budget cycles addressing needs of the city and the school department and said, this is the best way to raise sustainable recurring revenue to fund city operating budget expenses. We believe this is the best path forward in the short to medium term. And we are going to ask the voters to make that decision. The voters are, the voters are going to vote. We'll see what happens. I certainly hope they vote one way. Other Councilors may hope that they vote another way, but I don't envy anyone in any, I don't think any of us are going to be excited to do the budget if these funds are not available. We'll go to the podium, name and address record. You have one minute to ask your question, name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Please address your questions through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Anyone wanna go for that one? I have some answers on the Cambridge fire station, why it's not a good comparison, but go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The Cambridge Fire Station was a historic renovation of a historic 125-year-old fire station. They were installing geothermal energy. It's just completely incomparable to the project that we're talking about in Medford Square, which is a knockdown. Again, the cost overruns were mainly due to historic preservation issues. and projects that they were trying to add in there that are not things that we're trying to add to our station. Anyone else on the question? Seat down, we'll go to Zoom. We have Micah Kesselman. Micah, you have one minute. Name and address for the record, please. Please ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone want to go for that? Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Leming, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question was specifically, how would free cash become a sustainable solution for ongoing operating expenses?
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, question is how would free cash be a sustainable solution?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Stroud. Anyone else on this question? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Is it Simon? All right, Simon, you might have to bend the microphone down a little bit. Oh, nevermind.
[Zac Bears]: A direct and simple question. Anyone want to go on that? I'll go. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll take this one, Simon. I'll go to Anna, and then I'll go. Anna?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Simon, thank you for asking your question. I know you've been at a few of these meetings now and you've asked a few questions now. I know you remember some meetings from the springtime of the school committee where we were really worried about whether we were going to be able to keep all the teachers and the paraprofessionals and all the other people in your school who try to make your day a good day and make sure you learn something. Um, we were able, uh, this year to keep most of those people by using the one-time funds that we're talking about, um, that the city had staved up, but in the long run, um, it's really difficult, uh, for us to keep that promise if we don't have the money to keep paying people. So, um, question seven, as Anna noted, um, would allow us to make sure that we can keep everybody on, um, who's there now, we don't have to look at asking people to leave, firing people, laying people off. And question eight means that the city and the schools have a lot more opportunity to give our teachers and the people in your school the pay that they deserve to have more staff in the schools to help out in the classroom. And if we don't, see a yes vote on those two questions, it's going to be a lot harder for the city to do those things. So, um, we're, we're going to do our best no matter what happens. And one hard thing about democracy that you might be learning pretty young is sometimes people don't agree with you. And sometimes people make a decision that you don't want them to make. And if that happens, we're going to do our very best to try to make sure that everything stays okay. Um, but if people do say yes, it'll be easier for us to do that. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. We'll go to Zoom. We have Jess H. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your question. We'll go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else on this question? I can just note quickly that the one-time funds used to avoid cuts this year that were postponed saved two literacy interventionists. I think two positions were eliminated and those could be restored. There's also talk about the curriculum around literacy and what that would take to implement. I do agree with Councilor Lazzaro that, you know, talking to school committee, school administration, they'd be able to provide more information and details. And I don't know if either of those solutions would help your child or your specific situation, but I do know that paying our paraprofessionals more to reduce turnover, help students with disabilities. I know that investing more in interventionists and specialists helps our students with disabilities and the school having more resources to do that would help. Thank you. The person on Zoom is Micah Kesselman. So we'll go back to the podium. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone want to talk about that? Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I believe that's based on time on learning statistics issued by the district. Well, I believe that's where the information is coming from. Councilor Scarpelliletti, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's two minutes. So thank you. Thank you. Could you please, next time, give me that 10 seconds. Sorry. No, I appreciate it a little bit. All right. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just take a pause here. It's been three hours.
[Zac Bears]: The state formula doesn't work.
[Zac Bears]: Hold on, everyone. Can I speak, please? Thank you. Thank you everyone. Three hours in, we've been pretty good. I appreciate everybody. We've had a difficult conversation.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone, I think there's been a lot of back and forth. Cheryl, I don't want to talk about commenting on aggressiveness. We can interpret people's comments in many ways. I think you would agree. You don't want unfavorable interpretation of your comments and neither does councilor Zara. And I think we're going to leave it at that.
[Zac Bears]: To your point, we do. We constantly advocate for more state money. To your point, and I'm putting my two minutes on now, the state formula is not good for Medford. Even with the Student Opportunity Act, even with Chapter 70 money, given the charter formula, given the reimbursement formula, it's bad for Medford. Even with a 5% increase in ELL, which is one of the big sources of funding in the Chapter 70 formula, we're not getting a lot more. The main reason for that is because of our estimated you know, minimum contribution as a city, what the state plans to give us. And a lot of that is based on what is the city's capacity to pay for things itself versus the state. Malden gets $60 million a year in net aid for their schools. We get 11. Well, I mean, you know, I would, I would love to, I would love if the formula treated us better, but it doesn't because essentially because of our property values. I wanted to get to your point, um, specifically on these questions, question eight, it's not just for the high school schedule. It's that's one thing. That's one of three things. It's high school schedule alignment so that vocational and arts kids can do both. It's expanding classroom instructional opportunities district-wide, whether that means more staff or more teachers, and it's classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation, so paying existing staff more.
[Zac Bears]: I can read you the question. Shall the city of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $4 million in real estate and personal property taxes for FY 25 general operations of the Medford Public Schools to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vacational programming, expand classroom instructional opportunities, and for classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 2024? That's the whole question. It's for all three of those purposes. The district spends 85% of its budget on salaries. And the reason it's not more specific is because to get more specific would be to violate collective bargaining laws. All of that has to be bargained. So it gives us the money to have that conversation with our educators. And these have been ongoing questions. So I'm really hopeful it passes because I'd like to pay our teachers more. I'd like to pay our paraprofessionals more. And I'd also like to fix the school day.
[Zac Bears]: We're going to move to the next question. We'll go to...
[Zac Bears]: Matt, let me run the meeting today. Thanks. We'll go to the podium because the person on Zoom has already asked a question. Name, address, record. You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Is that the whole question?
[Zac Bears]: Cause I know the rest of the question.
[Zac Bears]: I'll give you 10 more seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. Does anyone want to go for it? Councilor Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else want to go on this question? Anybody else on the question? All right. I'll just say for one bill, I'll go. I think it's actually a symptom of the same problem. to go 25 years without addressing and correcting that issue is the same reason that we're talking about all the other deferred questions, deferred issues, deferred things in the scope of it.
[Zac Bears]: 25 years of not adjusting that compensation amount. Right. It went from 2000 to 2024 without being adjusted.
[Zac Bears]: And so I think it's actually a symptom of the same problem.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to discuss. I'm talking in the big picture, Bill. We're talking about on every single thing. basically every single thing in the city, water, sewer, school buildings, fire station, funding of the DPW staff, funding of paraprofessional pay, the school day, the vocational. I mean, I could give you a 30 point litany list of things that the city spent 20 or 30 or 40 years not fixing. This was one of them. It was within our authority. It's a symptom of that larger problem. We fixed that one thing. Now we're asking the voters to fix a larger set of problems. And I don't think those things are incongruous. That's just my opinion. And I appreciate your question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on this question? I see none. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone want to go on that? I really should be going last here.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to not go back and forth guys
[Zac Bears]: Thank you um go to vice president Collins: two minutes
[Zac Bears]: Are you asking for a clarification?
[Zac Bears]: If you're asking for a clarification, you can clarify.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right. Just to your point, to your question, yes, we're talking about fiscal 26. Teachers contract, Paris contract, both expired June 30, 2025. So we're talking about a new contract year and the increased pay for that would be on the new year. That's if there are no agreements or side agreements settled before then. You know, we're seeing significant costs, essentially, all of the two and a half increase and most of the new growth increase are being used to pay for fixed cost growth increases on things that we've already committed to do, either in contracts or where we have mandatory spending on health insurance and pensions. So, yes, this would be for fiscal 26. We're currently, once again, this year, we're doing basically what Councilor Scarpelli said, we're using one-time funds right now to cover the budget. to try to get us through to a point when we have reliable recurring revenue, which the financial task force has put forward in the form of these overrides. And if that is not available, that's when in the it's next year, but it's the budget process is going to happen from February to June upcoming. It's in the next few months. That's when those decisions will be made. And whether or not we know we have the reliable, sustainable revenue to pay for those things, or we don't is dependent on the override questions. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else on the question? All right, we'll go to another question. Still someone who's already asked on Zoom, so we'll go to first time question. Two minutes, or one minute, one question. Name and address the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Vice President Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Collins, I let you go way over, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Councilor Leming, two minutes, then Councilor Lazzaro, then Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, two minutes. Or did I get that? Or was it Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to, I did have a couple quick answers to your question too. It's okay. Bill keeps posting online something I posted, I think about five years ago where I said, I don't think we need an override right now. I want to explore all the other options first. And then we did, we explored short-term rentals. We explored marijuana revenue. We started on the zoning, which has borne some fruit and will bear more, but not fast enough. You know, we maxed out the local fees and stuff like, the hotel meals and rooms, et cetera, to the most, the state will let us do it. We're trying to get the state to open up the home roll petition so we can update the linkage fees for the first time in 30 years. I had a resolution on for a fee schedule update to look at the whole city fee schedule to which many of them haven't been updated in many years. So we're going to get a response back on that. All of that does not generate a significant enough amount of revenue to address the needs. That's why I feel that in all the six years of budgets that I've worked on and everything else, my answer to the question is, we've looked at all the other buckets that we have control over. They're no longer sufficient to address the need, and that's why I support these overrides. So that's just one piece of it. On the development, Somerville started its significant summer vision plans 20, 25 years ago. They started seeing the first fruits of that in significant way 15 years ago. It's really boomed the last five to 10 years. We're at the beginning of that process, not the middle, not the end. I wish we'd started that 25 years ago. I think I'd be much happier during budget season if we started that 25 years ago, because the decisions would be a lot easier. We're doing it now. It's starting to happen. I agree with Councilor Scarpelli. I don't agree with some of the legal proceedings that happened around 40Bs, but it's not the wholesome question here. Last thing I'll say, you started out with the teacher's compensation. Having talked to our teachers, having heard from our teachers union, our paraprofessionals union in this space and in the school committee, I know they don't feel like their compensation is sufficient and competitive. I know many of them feel pressure to leave for other districts. And I also know when it comes to benefits that there's been ongoing negotiation issues around the healthcare benefit for all of our employees, police, fire, DPW, city hall and the schools. So just wanted to put that perspective out there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. One minute for one question.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the question. Anyone want to go for it?
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else? Vice President Collins, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Lazzaro, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Danielle, I'm going to put on my two minutes here. And just say, a when we were discussing this, the reason that I support this is that I believe a debt exclusion is the best mechanism to fund the construction of a new fire headquarters in the When we're having the conversations, we have had some of the discussions that we've had over the last two months since the question came out. As you've noted, we weren't involved deeply in the planning process. There was an OPM that said, this is going to be the estimated cost of the building. Here's this number. And when we looked at the capital spending for the next five or 10 years, that's the biggest item. Sorry, I have a cold. I have something in my mouth, so it sounded a little funky. That is my rationale here, that this is the best way to fund a new headquarters in a timely manner and get it built. I tend to agree. I've read some of the stuff that has been put online when we're talking about the phased red, yellow, green, getting people out of that red zone. when we're talking about the arrangement on that second floor of the rooms and the showers and not being enough showers and bathrooms, I do believe that both of those would fall under the DOR regulations around minor project changes because they would be, you know, changes on the, essentially on the floor plan where things are, how many versions of things are. If there's something bigger than that, if we're talking about that would be something that would have to go further. There are options on that front. If it is a little bit over the 30 million, if we are talking about 35 instead of 30, you could go out to the bond capacity to do that. I would certainly be open to those. I have appreciated some of the dialogue that has been out there. I agree with councilmember the mayor and you, the fire union could get to a better place and be at a more collaborative place and that people would feel like their voices are being heard and included. I don't believe that the plan that's out there right now is the final plan. I don't think it will be the final plan. I expect that things will be addressed. Um, and I certainly expect that this council, if some of those changes are significant, would be supportive of providing additional funding for those changes. So that's my position on it. I tend to agree with some of my fellow Councilors around the timing. Um, as well. You know, we put it in this package because we believe this package is the one thing we're going to have to ask for other than a new high school until we start seeing that new growth be enough. So that's where I'm at. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Danielle. Next question. Name and address for the record. You have one minute to ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to Vice President Collins. Two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, anyone else? Councilor Scarpelli, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. Anyone else here? Councilor Levee, two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I'm going to go really quickly here. I think there's some questions around division. We are at an inflection point as a community. The community is changing. We're looking at new growth and development for the first time really seriously. We're talking about decades of deferred maintenance and underinvestment that are coming up now that we need to address. And I understand that paying more is a hard choice. I think it's a hard choice for everyone. I think some people feel that it's a choice that they can make. Some people feel like it's a choice that they can't make. But we have difficult decisions. And one of those difficult decisions is to ask people to pay for the things that the city needs to do. It's a very difficult decision frame. We've talked about all the different things that the city needs to pay for. I firmly believe, and my approach has been that the best thing we can do is ask the questions, present the information, get the budget out there, and then ask the voters to either elect people to make choices, which is most of the decisions, or even to make the choice themselves, which is what we're talking about with this proposition with questions six, seven, and eight. One thing I'll say is I don't call opposition talking points for your tactics. I don't do that. I don't say the opposition is dividing the city. That's just something I don't do. Councilor Scarpelli talks about the meetings that we should all look at to see what's happened. I'm pointing to people to those exact same meetings to watch those exact same meetings, because I think if they watch them, they'll see things from the perspective that I experienced those meetings from, right? At the end of the day, we're not perfect. Sometimes things get divisive. Sometimes certainly I react here or when I sat down there in a way that I'm not happy about, that's a little more divisive or a little more pointed than I wanted it to be. And I try to do better every time. I try to learn from those issues. And I think at the end of the day, there will always be outstanding questions. There will always be a process that could have been longer, that could have been better, that the rules could have been looked at differently, that people could have had more time. And I think you have to balance that against the priorities and the time that we need to make a choice, right? We could have a process for 10 years. And there's still be people with outstanding questions who aren't happy with the end of the process. And at the end of the day, I think that's what democracy is about. This has been a four-hour discussion of major tensions that people have, answering questions, trying to get to a point of agreement and stay in respectful dialogue. And I think that's the best that we can do. And at the end of the day, the voters will decide. The voters will decide on November 5th if these questions are approved or denied. The voters will decide next November. serves on this council, who serves as the mayor, who serves as the school committee. And that's democracy. We aren't all going to agree with it. I've been on the losing end of quite a few votes in this room myself. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think the question is about why the property value is going up faster than the median or the average that the assessor presented. The assessor presented that just for this year, the estimated median single family tax bill would increase 195 year on year. So that's, I'm just looking at the slide he presented. It was just for this change from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25. I think, quite frankly, a lot of those questions we'd have to talk to the assessor. I'd be happy to try to set up a meeting with the three of us or the two of us if you don't want me involved.
[Zac Bears]: That surprises me.
[Zac Bears]: I can't speak to what the state laws are around assessment and how they come up with their formulas, but I'd be happy to try to set up a meeting. I would love that. We've gone extensively over on the question. I do want to give other Councilors a chance if any other Councilors want two minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will coordinate, get the contact information. We can try to set up a meeting around the specific questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just realizing I would have asked Larry to do it. So another sad thought. Anyone else on this question? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium to our former chief. One minute for one question, chief.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. You want to go if I can first chief, we didn't have an opportunity.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Chief. I'll just speak for myself to say I appreciate your service to the city, coming down here tonight, laying out this case. A lot of what you've talked about has been coming out drips and drabs over the past couple of months. To me, to an extent, as best as I can say it, I think we are conflating two pieces of a question. There's the question of the design and the design process. From everything I've heard, it's not adequate. We're not at a final design. The final design needs to be improved, 100%. As I've read through letter from Danielle, things online, things like the clean zones and the space, and especially I know I've had some conversations with Todd Blake and the interim chief around how the design was changed relative to the MassDOT Mystic Ave Main Street project and how that's impacted things like turn radius and the apparatus bays. I have a lot of significant concerns about that. I still believe a debt exclusion is the best way to fund the fire station headquarters. Now, if 30 million is only funding 75, 85, 95% of that, A, it's not just 30 million, it's 30 million plus inflationary adjustments and minor project changes. So that 30 million bond could really be 32 to 35. If the changes can be made within that, then this debt exclusion continues to pay for the fire station headquarters. If it's more than that, you've said a number 40, 45 million, you think, potentially, I'm 100% in to say we need to look at the bond capacity or we need to ask again. for more. I don't think that voting no on this debt exclusion will get us to eventually a yes. That's my position on it. I think voting yes to the financing.
[Zac Bears]: And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth that you're advocating for that. My personal position is voting yes funds most of this project, the way that I think it can best be funded, the fastest way it can be funded. I didn't have all this information when we released the plan. Do I wish that people had acted differently so it would be easier to talk to the residents and get them to support things like this? As you're aware, as other folks here are aware, there are things that are not within this council's control within my control.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: I personally agree that the communication needs to be better. It needs to be more of a seat at the table. I'm still going to vote the way I'm going to vote, because I think it gets us a lot of the way there on the financing question, even if I personally have a lot of problems and issues with the design and the design process as it stands. So that's just where I'm at.
[Zac Bears]: And I appreciate you coming down. And yeah, I think the other thing we've talked about a lot tonight is that the state is not doing us right in a lot of ways. That includes MassDOT and DCR on our streets and roads in general. And you know, they get to say, well, we're not going to spend the 6 million to redesign your intersection if you don't do it our way. And we don't really have a lot of recourse, even though I wish we did. So it's a tough situation.
[Zac Bears]: So if you've got a ramp that's 60,
[Zac Bears]: It sounds like a lot of heads need to get together before a final design happens. Anything else on this question? All right. I think we are. Thank you, Chief. We have someone who hasn't asked a question yet, and then we have a hand that has and someone in line that has. So we'll go to the floor, name and address for the record, one minute to answer one question or ask one question.
[Zac Bears]: It's on, you're good. Okay. And you shouldn't need to touch it.
[Zac Bears]: I can answer. Does anyone else want to go first on this question? I know Councilor Scarpelli and I have been in five tax setting meetings together. I don't know if you want to All right, residential exemption. It's not the panacea, it seems to be A. There is a breakeven point in the home valuations, where if you implement a residential exemption, if your value is above that, you actually start paying more. So if we implemented a residential exemption, I believe two years ago, that breakeven was almost exactly the average, around 768,000. If you're above that value, you actually start paying more. than you did without the exemption. If you're under that value, you pay less. Now, the reason this happens is essentially to do this, A, the council would set it, but it would be in partnership with the assessor's office. The assessor's office has said they probably need to hire two more full-time staff in that office just to process the applications every year. But essentially, you take what is the flat tax rate, across all residential, your 8.51 per thousand, I think is our FY 24 rate. And you create a 30% exemption on the tax of the average home. So 30% of the tax bill for a $768,000 home, that becomes your exemption. That's a fixed dollar amount. Let's say for just for efficiency sake, let's say that's $3,000. So if your tax bill is, uh, you know, $6,000, you get $3,000 off. Um, but that has to be shifted, right? So the city's actual tax doesn't come down. The city still needs to raise all the revenue it's raising every year. So that, that fixed dollar about actually also means that you increase the tax rate. So instead of having an 8.51% rate, you might have a 12.5% rate, but then you get the $3,000 off if you're owner occupied. So if you're getting a 30% rate increase, and you're getting a 30% exemption, if you're in a lower value home, you save money. If you're in a condo, you probably save money. If you're in an under low value single family, you save money. If you're in a multifamily, a high value single family, certainly if you're in a large apartment building, you're actually paying more because the tax rate's going up significantly. to cover for that shift. So essentially, it benefits some people in the community, it benefits people who generally condo owners, people in single families below the breakeven point. And it actually would result in increased taxes for people who have very high valued single family homes. Most multifamily homes are over 750,000 valuation apartment buildings are so we could implement it. We would need six months to a year to do so before a tax rate hearing, which happens in December. So we'd probably need to make a decision by April or May of the prior year. The assessor's office was ready to be budgeted to hire more staff to process the applications. And at the end of the day, it doesn't, it's not a panacea for everyone. I tend to support it anyway. I think it turns a flat rate wealth tax into a progressive rate wealth tax, where the rate is actually lower on lower wealth properties and higher on higher wealth properties. But it doesn't help everyone. It doesn't mean, if you're a senior and you're above the break even, you might pay more. So it's not, it doesn't help everyone.
[Zac Bears]: It certainly is.
[Zac Bears]: We consider it and discuss it every December. We basically have the conversation I just tried to summarize at our tax rate setting hearings. And I know there's been different perspectives on it. I've been a supporter because I generally tend to think that having that progressive rate system is a better approach than the flat rate. But similarly, I've heard arguments from my colleagues, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Knight, who are not on the council, but they were, concerned about what if you're in a home value above the breakeven point and that's about basically about half of people who are owning properties. So I think it goes either way.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other stuff on the residential exemption? All right. Can you wait? Can you wait? All right. We are now, I think no one, has anyone who has, hold on one second, Andy. I'll make a brief though. Just one second.
[Zac Bears]: Has anyone not asked a question who wants to ask a question? Seeing none, we'll go to public comment. I'll take Andy, then I'll take Gaston for a second question, then we have Micah on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Andy. Gaston, either a question or a comment, and I'm gonna go up to two minutes for everybody for this last little section.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gaston. Anyone else on that comment? I just wanna note myself, and this is just me being an economics nerd, and I'm really sorry to do this at 10 p.m. I like to use the PCE price deflator for state and local government. It's line 24 on the BEA table of the GDP price deflators. And if you look at that, it tells a little bit of a different story. Even when PCE for like the average person was 4%, for example, in 2021, for state and local government, it was 6.7. In 2021, it was, 7.1, 2022 for PCE, generally it's 8.0 for state and local. State and local price inflators tend to be higher than the PCE. It's PCE, but it's just PCE broken down for state and local. It tends to be higher. I appreciate your comment. I agree that the new growth element is a factor here, right? And I think Matt was saying over the last, since 1980, I can't remember the fact, it's not 2.5% that we've averaged, it's 3.1 or something like that because of the new growth. In the last couple of years, the new growth is significantly higher. So I think we're at like four, but we're also talking about 4% when we're looking at a cost increase of eight, right? So it's still running behind.
[Zac Bears]: Someone put out a great chart where it was showing the real, a nominal dollar increase and then it also had a graph of the inflation adjusted real dollar increase. And I think personally we're catching up for 2020 to 2023 here with this override.
[Zac Bears]: And to me, now we're going back and forth, and this is just because I- We're already gutting up. I enjoy this. I mean, I think this override catches us up to where we need to be, where the new growth, it fits to me what I'm seeing as this is the one time we're going to have to ask for this outside of the high school, because the new growth will get us there in five to 10 years. And this catches us up from the inflation adjustments that we need over the past few years. So, thanks. I like arguing about PC with people. We'll go to Zoom, and then we'll go to the podium. Zoom, I have Mike name and address. Second question, you have two minutes if you want to ask a question and make a comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments on that comment or question from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the podium. Our esteemed election commissioner and former school committee member.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think we're going to go back. I don't think we're going to go direct on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole and move to our regular meeting agenda by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Fleming. Councilor Matt saying we have been going for a while. I need a little bit of a break and it will take us about 10 minutes to get the zoom going for the regular meeting. We do have a number of items on. So on that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll or on this motion. All those in favor. Opposed motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Good news about the money too, so we'll get there. Before I start, I want to shout out our Council Vice President, Kit Collins, who is here. All right. Now, I know everyone's just here to see the giraffes. We're going to do three things before then. First, you're going to listen to me for a minute. Hopefully you'll donate if you haven't already. And then we're going to take a photo right around here so that we can show everyone how many people are psyched for this campaign. correct. It's a beautiful evening to be here with all of you, my neighbors. I want to thank the McGordys for hosting us, and I want to thank everyone for everything that they've done so far to build the foundation of this grassroots campaign to invest in Medford. I want to talk a little bit about why we're here. We're here because we see the impact of chronic underfunding around all of us, all around us every day. Kids without the resources they need to thrive. Schools in desperate need of maintenance. Teachers and paras who aren't paid enough. Not enough teachers and paras and staff in the first place. Streets and sidewalks in such bad shape that people are getting hurt and everyone's cars constantly need repairs. A 60-year-old fire headquarters without the proper living quarters and gear storage to keep our firefighters safe. Not only do we see it, the numbers lay it out. We're the fifth lowest in per capita spending of the 97 cities and towns with more than 20,000 people in Massachusetts. 92nd out of 97. Fourth lowest residential property tax rate of that same group, 93rd out of 97. And we're one of only 20 cities out of all 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts that has never even tried to put an override or a debt exclusion on the ballot. Even the people who passed Proposition 2.5 in 1980 thought that these votes would be happening regularly. It wasn't that we should starve government, it was just that people should know what their money's going towards. And we have those items on the ballot today. We're here because it's time to turn the ship around and invest in Medford. Medford residents have been clamoring for the chance to vote to invest in our city, and elected officials have finally delivered by putting questions six, seven, and eight on the ballot on Tuesday, November 5th. We need to spend the next two months pounding the pavement, raising money, and talking to our neighbors about why we need to vote yes to invest in our schools, our streets, and our fire department. Now, this campaign is not going to be easy. Some people may have seen the latest attack line. Stop the scam. Well, let me tell you now, I think calling the hard work of people coming together to invest in our community a scam is just plain weird. Our kids are not a scam. Our teachers and our firefighters are not a scam. Walking or rolling or driving down the street safely is not a scam. Doing the right thing for our city is not a scam. So we're going to push back and we're going to push back hard. We'll be correcting the record and busting these myths every day. And we'll have resources to help you do it at investinmedford.com. There's stuff up there now, go check it out. There's gonna be even more rolling out over the next few weeks. I need each and every one of you to be ambassadors for the truth here in Medford. So sign up, most everyone did at the front, get trained on the facts and make sure you can step in and correct the record when the lies start coming out. But pushing back just isn't enough. We need to fight back in order to win. That means we need to get the facts out to as many people as possible, especially with so many people voting by sending mailers and spending enough money to do this campaign right. Our fundraiser goal was $50,000. I want to thank everyone who's already given and raised over $6,000 just in the first two weeks of this campaign. I especially want to thank Dave McKenna and Nicole Morell, who gave $1,000 each. Thank you. I wrote a check tonight for $1,000 from my campaign funds because winning this campaign and investing in our future is way more important than me getting reelected. So I want to thank everyone who's already donated. Please donate if you haven't and get the word out to your neighbors. I'm hoping we can raise another $6,000 tonight on our path to victory. Thank you so much for letting me share my thoughts with you tonight. I'm just so excited to talk to everybody, talk to our neighbors, and especially celebrate with some homegrown entertainment. I love this city. We have a truly transformative opportunity to build a better future for Medford and I'm glad to be here with you over the next two months to make it happen. Last week I was reminded of some great words from a great campaign. I'm fired up. Are you fired up? I'm ready to go. Are you ready to go? Fired up. Ready to go. Fired up. Ready to go. Let's win this thing. Alright, now we need to take that photo so folks could gather here.
[Zac Bears]: Uh, councilor present. Do we know if the charter study committee's recommendations use these? Yes. Okay. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: when everyone else is ready to go to the next slide. I'm good, I have some thoughts, but I can defer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to get a little bit more explicit on that, we'll see what their proposals and ideas are. I would think, it seems to me that there's three and maybe a fourth logical division of this for us, given that I think we're gonna make some changes to the ideas and proposals of the Charter Study Committee. So I could kind of see it going and there could be an added step potentially, but my thinking is that the, and I don't even know if we need its own meeting for this necessarily, but the legislative and executive branch question would be one piece of things. The administrative organization, financial procedures organization would be another. And then the citizen participation and elections piece could be the third. And I think then maybe the incorporation, general provisions, transitional provisions would be another bucket. along with school committee. I'm just wondering if we want to have our own meeting for school committee and invite the school committee members to input, have their input on that. And maybe that could be, maybe it's three meetings. Maybe it's like legislative executive administration or four meetings, legislative executive administration, financial elections, and citizen participation. And maybe we could also do the incorporate the, you know, incorporation and the general provisions as part of that I think that might be, I'm just trying to think of like the scope of work, you know, those seem to be a little bit quicker to get through like I'm sure we'll just kind of take what the Charter Study Committee said for section one is like, you know, we are the city of Medford and this is our mission statement, that kind of thing. It's not as nitty gritty as the details of like, what are the districts maybe going to be for different bodies? Or do we want that to be uniform? You know, powers, of course, are a huge question. Do we want to go down the road of certain things around elections? We already have elections every two years, stuff like that. So I think those are, kind of the bigger buckets of work. So maybe there's five buckets of work, but maybe it's four meetings, maybe we could do a couple in one meeting. And the one that just sticks out to me is what we might want to schedule separately as a school committee, just so that I just don't think we should lump that in with legislative executive branch I think it's a little bit different. And then I think if we're having those four meetings of this committee. My other question would be, do we want to have a meeting before those four meetings where we. receive the mayor's thoughts and the study committee's thoughts before we go into specifically those four meetings on the actual topics. And that might give Councilors, you know, time to review that report. If we want to send any questions back to the mayor or to KP or Tina to legal counsel or to the study committee, um, we could do that and then we could go step by step and say like, here are the four meetings and Councilors could bring their proposals to those four meetings on the different kind of areas of the charter. And that would probably be maybe that first meeting where we just start reviewing and asking questions about the study committee proposals and recommendations and the mayor's report, you know, recommendations and proposals. Maybe that's next month. And then maybe we could do, try to do one or two meetings a month over the next you know, December, January, February, and then hopefully we're getting something out by March. Um, and maybe we could even be putting that on the ballot for November, 2025, um, to go into effect in 2027, something like that would just be my thinking. Um, instead of having, I think if we go longer than that, we're probably waiting until 2026 or 2027 and not having anything going to effect for another five years, which I think we all want to avoid.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and to Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins' point, maybe that's the approach. Maybe that meeting in a month from now or so is if we took down the four or five buckets that I kind of outlined, have Councilors bring their ideas, what they've seen, what they think works for Medford, bring that to the meeting. We could then also have Collins Center or study committee or an example from another community. And that would be a way for us to have that discussion without it being inherently like, I think what we want to avoid here is, um, Pitting different groups that have been moving through this against one another. And like the ideas, I think like there's just going to be different ideas. And now that this process that we are starting our process, which is the formal process and, you know, it can't move forward without a vote of the council can't move forward without the mayor being able to say, All right, councilors think this, council maybe has been able to reach some consensus here. How does that compare to what the mayor's thinking is? How does that compare to what the charter study committee's ideas are? How does that compare to what some other communities do? That would be a good way for us to factor in those different perspectives in a way that is productive and based on like a discussion format rather than it being like competing proposals.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I would move to have the chair through the clerk, send that out to members of the committee for members of the committee to come back with their ideas and comments on each of the different articles and sections. And maybe when you send that out chair, you could lump them into those different groupings. Each of it's basically I think two or three articles, a group. And then when we come back in a month, hopefully we'll have a good discussion on that substance. And then, so I'd move to do that and move to adjourn. All one motion. Oh, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: What you said will give us a picture of their ideas.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to clarify, that's basically just the New Herb Chambers Old Century Bank, the Volkswagen dealership, and the car wash.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: I think the, yes, I think the blue dogleg, I think we went a little. I think on the far end of the Somerville border and the three parcels front that have frontage on Mystic Ave. I think we should make those commercial. If you even look at that far, the last parcel in the city, even on the other side of the fence and the other side of East Albion Street, there's actually another industrial building. on the other side of that, so it's not fronting, those last two lots, the back is not fronting residential property. And then I had a question on that, and I think the one, the little, you know, That big long one that has that little driveway that you could see out to Mystic Ave, that's that big rear Mystic Ave thing. I think that parcel immediately to the northwest is a gas station right now. And it has that Mystic Ave frontage. So I just think that should be commercial. And then those two that abut the mass inspection site should be, you know, basically the SunRail border, that inspection site, those should be commercial as well. And then I just had a question about, I know we generally like to do the zones based on parcels. That rear mystic app parcel is a real funky parcel. And I'm wondering, could we split that parcel into two different zones, or is that really not recommended?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I'm just thinking, like, maybe just take everything where the commercial line
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that would be my recommendation there. I know it would be kind of a little bit different than what we normally do.
[Zac Bears]: You'd be taking basically a giant driveway and a gas station and seeing if you could do something better with it. And I think that's worth trying. So that would be my recommendation is maybe just take a straight line down to those last two parcels and then make all of that commercial that has that Mystic Ave frontage. But then you still have the buffer zone with the park and the residential neighborhood.
[Zac Bears]: Center. It used to be Russo Marine. Oh, you might want to go to that. No one can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: President Burrs. I just will note that on the, and again, if we wanna do a walk or if we wanna just get a little more insight on it, It looks like what might be a Medford Housing Authority maintenance building. Basically the public housing, it looks like there's a large grass buffer and a maintenance building between that lot and the housing units themselves. Obviously, but the way that the lot goes, it angles closer, the closer you get to Bonner Ave, but certainly where the Walnut Street Center is now versus the large parking lot. Basically, that looks like it's abutting a garage and an open grass area. Looks like it's probably at least 100 feet, maybe more, from the housing units.
[Zac Bears]: I think this map is deceptive as to what really what that looks like is four different large buildings. And the Fulbright Street definition is no different than the definition between the next parcel and the next large parcel visually, if you're looking at it. I mean, I could see an argument for mixed use too for that Walnut Street Center lot, but lot size, existing condition, existing use, it feels a lot more similar to the stuff south and east of it than it does to the things that are north of Bonner, to me. So that would be, I'd be inclined to leave it as is.
[Zac Bears]: And if I recall them. life sciences combined proposal would have used a piece of that, like they would have tried to get it straight away from the 16 exit and then wrap it around to where to have basically an intersection where the pink purple line is, if I think I'm remembering that right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That was one of my questions, too.
[Zac Bears]: I do have two. I don't know if they're exactly copy editing kind of more things. On the MX3 max height under the incentive zoning, I just think that that should say podium for tower 10 instead of tower eight. Is that a typo?
[Zac Bears]: It's an MX3 max height for incentive zoning.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And then I just have one other question, which was base height versus minimum height. Is this, is that, did we have that in the last proposal?
[Zac Bears]: I think three, a minimum height of three where the base height is four and MX one and MX two, I get that. I just feel like the further, I feel like the four minimum in commercial and certainly in MX three might be a little bit too low. I mean, there'd just be a huge gap if you had a bunch of, if you had a 10 story or a 14 story next to a four story. And I wonder what we think about maybe a higher minimum height for those two districts.
[Zac Bears]: And I see what you're saying about the podium. So that makes sense. Those were my questions.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, just to clarify, was that across all the zones?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, so just the commercial. I get where you're coming from, but I worry about doing that in an MX3. I think we might need to have a little bit of a compromise there.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. And yeah, I mean, I think part of this goes back to the definition of industrial, right? If we're talking like fab space and an MX3, that makes sense to me, but I don't think it should be one story or even a double height, single story structure. So. I mean, my inclination, I think we need to talk about the industrial. go through that industrial list a little bit more and decide what we think makes sense in an MX3 where the minimum height is four stories, and what might make sense in commercial where the minimum height, and maybe the minimum height in commercial is one story, but we can say that it could be double height, or maybe we could say that that ground floor story could have a higher maximum for commercial. I don't love the idea of having a distribution center on Mystic Ave. I get why it was raised as an example, but I just don't think it's highest and best use and where we're trying to go with this. So it's just my two cents.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think the way around it is just to say, In commercial, the max ground floor height can be 30 feet. And if we want to drop it down to one floor, then you could have a double height if you wanted. Drop the minimum down to one.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, we could go down to it. I mean, if that's what folks think, if that's the only way we're going to keep industrial uses potentially is to have a minimum height in the commercial district of one story, I think that's fine. And that if we need those stories to be tall, I would just change the ground floor maximum to be whatever that height needs to be.
[Zac Bears]: And if it needs to be 35 feet or 28 feet or whatever you guys think. Something around that.
[Zac Bears]: So, sorry. We need a higher dam, that's what I said.
[Zac Bears]: It's a grim world.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, whatever you... I'm open to whatever you think needs to be the minimum height and the ground floor height to allow the industrial uses. I guess, Sal, if you don't mind me asking from an economic development perspective, Is the thinking just like we want to have some options left for these kinds of uses or you know why it just feels to me, I mean this like certain things I get like some sort of fab vacation site that's close by to a life science tower that makes sense to me, but. Like an Amazon truck distribution site like that doesn't make sense to me, so I guess i'm just wondering what the thought is.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I think maybe my motion would then be for this, that the steering committee discuss the industrial uses and whatever height and story height requirements are needed to maintain them. And we kind of come back with a coherent just table that includes those items. Cause I think we have to go back and look at the uses anyway, um, between the MX three and the commercial. So, And I think to me, that's the last big outstanding question here of all of this. But, you know, that's just my opinion.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: On my radar. keep the papering committee, refer out the comments. Well, I'll just, if you want to take public comment, because I'll just adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just I agree too. Motion to report out the questions and comments to the steering committee, keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we have governance.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome, welcome. We had over 60 people signed up. There's about 30 of us here now, so really appreciate all the turnout. All right, it's 6.35. We want to be respectful of people's time. Welcome to our Invest in Medford Zoom Community Forum. We will be here tonight until about eight o'clock. And I will be here with School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Graham and School Committee Secretary Paul Rousseau to talk about the Invest in Medford campaign and questions six, seven, and eight on the ballot here in Medford. to invest in our schools, our streets, and a new fire headquarters. The format we're gonna be using today is we are going to be starting off with about 10 to 15 minutes of introduction, short presentation from myself and Jenny and Paul. Then we'll be taking questions for about an hour. There is an app up called Slido. If folks have a difficulty accessing it, let me know, but it should allow you to ask a question right in here. You should also be able to upvote questions that you like. I obviously ask that folks, you know, use the tool responsibly. You know, we had open registration. This is a public meeting. Looks like most everyone here is using their name. But, you know, just want to do that digital security ask of everyone here. And after that, we'll take about 10 to 15 minutes to wrap up. If you feel like a question didn't get asked, or if you wanna follow up with us after, you can send us an email at investinmedford.gmail.com and we will do our best to answer further. And I'm sure all of, many of us are around to talk and answer questions. So with that, I will turn things over to Jenny to introduce herself and then Paul, and then we'll go from there.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul and Jenny. So just, we've had a few more people come in, and as I noted before, we're gonna be taking questions right after our presentations and our introductions. There's an app called Slido. I think I just sent an invitation to everybody. You can ask questions using this app and upvote questions, and we will take them as they go. If we see the same question multiple times, we're probably only gonna answer it once, but really encourage folks to start putting forward their questions using the tool so that we can start to answer them. So feel free to start doing that now, and hopefully we'll have a good lineup of questions to be answered. But before that, I just wanna talk a little bit more about how we got here. So as Jenny noted, many of us in the city and many of us who run for office have seen the impact of underfunding and austerity budgets and cost growing up faster than revenues going up and the impact that's had on our city. We see that our streets are not in the condition we want them to be in. We know we have firefighters at the headquarters that is still appetited and far past the end of its useful life. And of course, as Jenny and Paul have noted, we have a school system that really has faced a lot of challenges when it comes to budgets, hiring staff, maintaining programs, maintaining buildings, things that we see every day. And two years ago in 2022, we had the fiscal 23 budget. I'm sure if folks were paying attention at the time, they noted that it was a very contentious budget season. And one of the things that came out of that was really a clear picture for the first time in a long time of the structural deficit in the city budget. the use of one-time funds to pay for ongoing expenses, the soon-to-be-expiring federal funds that even two years ago were on our radar as expiring that we were using to pay to keep our schools and our city moving. And where we are after that budget season, the city council, Councilor Collins and I tried to work with the mayor to see if we could get towards looking at an override to address that structural deficit. We weren't able to reach an agreement, but the following budget season, after a lot of negotiation, we were able to work with the mayor to form, to reach an agreement, to pass a budget ordinance and to form a financial task force. The school committee through its budget process and the council through this budget ordinance have really moved to a more transparent process that's more engaging of the public when we talk about creating the budget and understanding the challenges that we have. And the piece I want to focus on just for a minute is the financial task force. So the task force was announced in June of 2023, and consisting of the mayor, who is also the chair of the school committee, the council president, the council vice president, the school committee vice chair, and the chief of staff, also being supported by the staff in both our city departments finance, et cetera, assessing, and our school finance and operations team. So that task force was announced in June 2023. We started to meet, we put out an initial press release and public statement in September of 2023, talking about how we were going to continue to meet with the goal of coming back to folks before the end of the fiscal year with a proposal that addressed the major financial challenges facing the community. In March of 2023, sorry, 2024, we kind of put out, we announced a framework for that approach. And then in June, we released the detail of that plan, which are the three ballot questions that are now on the ballot for November 5th for the consideration of the voters of the city of Medford. Those ballot questions are question six, what should be a debt exclusion to fund the construction of a new fire headquarters? Question seven, which addresses the school system structural deficit and also the fact that right now we don't have anyone in our DPW who is dedicated to fixing our streets and sidewalks. We would bring back a dedicated street and sidewalk repair crew for the first time in many years. And question eight is about the future of our schools and then really investing and expanding our schools. So the $4 million override to invest significantly into our schools, into our educators, into programming, into making our schools what we want to be, and addressing what Jenny and Paul noted, all of the things that people want to see our schools do. Now, will we be able to do every single one of them with $4 million? No, but it's the first time we're going to be able to have a serious conversation about what transformational investment would look like in our schools. So the total of those items, the debt exclusion pays for a $30 million bond, The estimated cost of that is about $2 million per year. That's question six. Question seven is $3.5 million per year. And question eight is $4 million per year. Those amounts would be part of the property tax levy. They would be paid by residents and businesses, and it would essentially affect the tax rate. The tax rate would be about 60 cents per, 60 cents higher. So it would go up from about 8.5 dollars per $1,000 in assessed value to about $9.1 per $1,000 in assessed value. And the average impact on the average single family home is about $37 per month. So that is the summary of what we're talking about and how we got here. And, you know, the financial task force really does believe that and has stated very clearly that this is a path forward that really does bring us to some financial stability and also the ability to make significant investments in our public schools. So with that, I will end my comments and we can move into the question and answer period. I see we do have a few questions here and I really do hope folks will submit some questions in the Q and A so that we can answer any concerns and provide information to the community about the questions they see around the override. And I'm just putting out an invite once again for folks to submit their questions. The first question is, can you speak to cuts that will likely be made in our schools should the overrides not pass? That's from Melanie. H and we have five likes on that. I will go to Paul or Jenny to talk about that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think just to follow up on that, the specifics of the cuts are part of the budget process, but the answer is 35 to 45 full-time equivalent positions, right? And that's...
[Zac Bears]: then I will clarify to at least 35 to 45 full-time equivalent positions. But what that looks like, I mean, that's, it's a huge cut, you know, that's, it's incredibly large. It's certainly would affect every building, every classroom, every program. Jenny and Paul, I just wanted to follow up on, I just wanted to follow up on one thing, Jenny, first before we go to, there are some, Good questions here that we want to get to, but what was just there was 1 follow up to this question, which was. What was actually cut this year and would anything be able to come back if the override did pass.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's a great transition. And I think we might be able to meet both of your requests, Jenny, for a more hopeful question and talk about some of the things we could be able to do. The question was, could you provide some examples about funds from question eight? So that is the investing more in our schools question, what those could be used to improve our schools.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, guys. I want to move to some of our other top questions here. And folks, please feel free to submit some more questions. We have about 35, 40 minutes before we start to move into some wrapping up. But the two top questions on deck right now, we'll start with one along these lines. Is there a long-term plan to fill these budget gaps, or will we continue to need budget overrides? The answer is there is a long-term plan to increase revenue for the city. The city council has been working on that in partnership with our planning department for several years now. Two years ago, we passed the first recodification of the city zoning in 60 years. And what that does is if we allow new development and new growth, that is the only way outside of an override or a debt exclusion. that the property tax levy can increase above the 2.5%. So the last two years have actually been the best two years for new growth values in the city of Medford in the last 25 years. No matter what other people may say about that, that's just the fact you can go to the State Department of Revenue Division of Local Services website to see that information. And that has helped in the past two years, it hasn't been astronomical Cambridge, Somerville, Boston level, or even Worcester level growth, but it has been an improvement. It has staved off even more cuts. It made possible this year some of what Jenny and Paul were talking about around not having to make the cuts that we had to make. And part of that is also the one-time revenue, the one-time funding from the federal government, of course. But the city council, In partnership with the planning department. We now have a city comprehensive plan for the first time ever. We have a city housing production plan we also have our climate plan and our open space plan. And those are going, all of those are being looped into a zoning update project that the council has been working on with the planning department and our zoning consultant in associates. 11 times on that year in city council in our planning and permitting committee. We have some really, we made some initial adjustments and we have some really, I think, transformative proposals coming up around our Mystic Avenue corridor, our Salem Street corridor, our Medford Square corridor, in terms of the transforming those neighborhoods and allowing significant new growth to see modern walkable mixed use corridors with commercial space and residential space that once the zoning is completed and then once property owners and developers come in to start working on these projects would be transformative for our community in terms of raising revenue. So that is the long-term vision for how we raise revenue beyond going down the other model. I think this is maybe going into the next question a little bit, but the other model is the Winchester, Weston, Arlington, and other place model, which if folks don't know, those are places that do overrides and debt exclusions all the time. Something that may be a surprise to folks is that when Proposition 2 1⁄2 passed in 1980, the proponents of Proposition 2 1⁄2 actually said, that they expected communities to do overrides and debt exclusions regularly, and that the reason for the law was just so that it would be transparent and decided on by the voters. Now, many, 315, I think, of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts have since proposed an overrider or debt exclusion. Many of those communities have passed an overrider or debt exclusion. Medford is one of the few that has never even put one on the table. So we think that with our location close to Boston, the value of our community, the transformative opportunities and corridors that have not seen the economic development focus that they've needed to see. And quite frankly, if we had seen 10, 20, 30 years ago, we might be having a different conversation today. We might be having a conversation more like a Somerville or a Cambridge or even an Everett. That's a way for us to transform the community in a positive way, bring new amenities and benefits to the people who live here and increase the city's tax base significantly in the long run. I think in the medium to short term, you know, the financial task force believes that these overrides and the debt exclusion for the fire station provide significant fiscal space in the next few years for the city to not be in a budget crunch. and maybe even be a bridge entirely to that development and revenue from those new developments. I can't say that with any certainty. Certainly if there's another period, you know, if the tariff that have been proposed by a presidential candidate go into place and we see inflation at 10 or 20% again in the next couple of years, we're gonna be in really big trouble right away. If we see 2% inflation for the next 10 years, it's a different story. But, you know, That's really the thinking here. The one project that I think would fall outside of that is, of course, the new Medford High School. There is no way, and you haven't really seen any community, even Somerville with Assembly Row had to do a debt exclusion for its new high school. That is the one project that I think there would be a further request of the voters to fund. But right now, that is the only thing on the horizon that the current leadership team between the mayor, council, and school committee foresees asking the voters to do. the conditions remain reasonable and we don't have 20% tariffs on everything we import. I don't know if Jenny or Paul you want to add on that long term court plan around the budget gaps at all.
[Zac Bears]: I think there's a follow-up on that, Jenny. There's a question, why do we have to wait so long for the high school debt exclusion? And I may have misspoke. That would be sooner than 5 to 10 years. The MSBA process, the stage we're in now, we would probably find out. Jenny, could you go into that a little bit more?
[Zac Bears]: For the new high school for the new high school. Yeah. All right, Paul, I cut you off and then I will go to Matt.
[Zac Bears]: Another panel, Matt.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just missing those. That's really a really important point. Sometimes I take for granted that people don't know that we don't have such basic things that I forget to mention that we're establishing things for the first time here in Medford that many communities have had for decades, if not longer. Jack, could I speak to the admin is heavy question? Sure, yeah, we'll jump back to that and then we can talk about a couple other questions.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I want to go to the next question that we have a bunch of votes on. which is, do we know what other towns have done to get overrides to pass given that Medford is a laggard compared to similar towns? I will defer to my colleagues in just a moment, but I wish there was a magic formula, because I'd be less stressed out about whether or not this question or these questions are going to pass. I think, to be honest, the first step is the city government needs to have the courage to ask. This is the first time the city government has had the courage to ask the voters. I don't think anyone thinks, oh, let's raise our taxes is a popular thing for anyone to ask anyone else. And I understand like deeply and completely that it's a difficult decision for a lot of people. I think we all understand that. I think we also know that there's a lot of difficult decisions that have been had to be made or continue to be making when it comes to layoffs? And do we pay our staff enough? And do we have this department exist anymore? Things that are really fundamental to the functioning of city government. And, you know, do we have our firefighters have a building where they feel like they're not going to get sick in that building, right? Like, these are really human deep questions, just as much as am I able to afford the tax increase is a really human deep question for a lot of people. And I think for a long time, city government felt like we could keep asking the community to not invest in city government, to do more with less, and found creative or uncreative or short-term, not long-term ways to make that work. And the last five years, especially with the pandemic and with the cost growth, we hit the wall, right? And so now we don't have another choice but to ask. And I think we've been clear that if we ask and we And the answer is no. And there's a lot of very, very hard choices that come after that. And so that's the first step I think to getting an override to pass is that an override is on the ballot. From what other towns have done what we need to do I think Matt really spoke to it and Paul spoke to it and Jenny spoke to it as well right like How do one of the big things that we're talking about the financial task force is how do we make sure that we address the scope of problems that is significant enough that people can see the investment that we're asking them to make. Because if we don't do a big enough thing and we ask people to do this and they don't actually see a change. we're not engendering any more trust than we've been engendering with the lack of progress that the city has been making for a long time. Um, so I'm really encouraged. I think we've done a lot of public education, quite frankly, over the last two to four years around the difficulties and issues that we see in our schools and on our streets and in our city departments, where a lot of people are saying, Hey, you know, maybe I don't want to pay more taxes. Maybe it will be a challenge for me to figure out how to afford to pay more taxes, but also I care about this community. And I know that we need to do these things because. And we can just see it, right? Like it's literally the environment that we live in and the buildings that our kids are in and the teachers who are overworked and the city employees who are overworked, right? Like we see and feel the reality and I think people are ready to make this investment. So I've been really encouraged talking to my neighbors, been really encouraged talking to lots of folks across the city that these things are going to pass. And I think the good thing that if we move forward on these is it sets a foundation for us to show progress, to show improvement, to maybe get the financial systems and softwares in place where we can point to a dashboard instead of a spreadsheet, point to, you know, pull data in a day instead of a week to answer questions more quickly. And my hope is to see that virtuous cycle of investment beginning more investment and city government having the resources that it needs to do its job, meaning that the public trust the city can do its job. So that is my real hope. I feel good right now. I'm going to be working very hard over the next 27 days, talking to people, getting people, raising money to send out the mailers, doing all the different things that we need to do to make sure that we get a yes vote on November 5th. But that's my kind of pitch and spiel around what do we need to do to get an override to pass and why we went this direction. Paul, I see that you're next.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if anyone can tell that Paul is the secretary of the school committee, because one of the jobs that Paul has to do is sign every bill. So he's pretty familiar with that side of things. I think Jenny raised the same exact point, though, around our class sizes, right? When you ask teachers and paras to have more kids in the room, it gets harder to educate the kids. And if you can have four less kids in a room, that may be the difference between someone staying or someone going somewhere else where the class sizes are smaller. To be honest, there's burnout and turnover in the school. Sure, I'm on the city council and I spend a lot more time on the city side of things. We have a lot of turnover and burnout on the city side too. A lot of great folks come in, build some relationships. They're here for a year, they're here for two years, and then they get offered a job that isn't as many hours, is at a higher pay rate in another city or in the private sector, and they move on. I mean, I think the greatest example of this is our issue hiring a city solicitor. We've raised the pay like two or three times now. hoping that this latest one, which was just a month ago, might actually, or two months ago, might actually lock us in and hopefully we can hire someone. But yeah, people come in, they work hard, they realize that they don't have the, they're working more or doing more jobs that they would have to do. And then, you know, doing two jobs here where they might be able to do one job in another community, they move on. And I think we see that across the board, city and schools. I wanna go to the next question. We'll just want to add in quickly that there was a clarification on the heavy administrator talking about the curriculum and department heads, not more superintendents. So just wanted to note that. Thanks for putting that clarification. On the questions here that are left and we're coming up, you know, we got to probably about 10 or so minutes left if folks want to throw another question into the chat. The next one is, has there been discussions about an owner-occupied property tax exemption like Cambridge and Somerville have, and is that something the city council could pass? So every year we use, we set the tax rate. I won't go into the, take me more than 10 minutes to go into the complexities of exactly how Proposition 2 1⁄2 works, but we set the tax rate every year. And one of the options that is, you know, we technically vote to consider is, could we do an owner-occupied property tax exemption? What that means is that the city would set a certain percentage of the average residential bill. And if you were an owner-occupied unit, you would get that, essentially, your tax bill would go down by that amount. Let's use some round numbers here. Let's say it's $3,000. that would be like a 30% exemption. Let's say it's $3,000. Now, I don't know off the top of my head, it's actually probably pretty close. How that would work is everybody who pays a residential tax bill from, if your owner occupied, regardless of your value, you'd get $3,000 off your bill. So if your house, essentially it creates a breakeven point where, And it's a little more complicated than this, but basically everyone who's owner-occupied would get that cut off. But that money doesn't just go away. The city can't afford to actually have the taxes go down. So that amount that owner-occupants get, that reduction, gets shifted onto people who don't get the owner-occupant exemption. So essentially, you'd be shifting the city, the cost of the property tax on residential properties, off of owner-occupants onto non-owner-occupants. But the other side of that is that that actually changes the tax rate. It essentially means instead of a flat residential tax rate on residential tax bills, you end up with a progressive rate. I don't actually think that's a bad thing, but one of the reasons that previous councils prior to 2022 didn't pass it is it actually would raise taxes on owner occupants in high value homes. So if your home is worth more than the breakeven point, even though you get the exemption, the tax rates going up more than the exemptions, you actually pay more. The point being that it's a complicated conversation. Essentially, if you are in a condo or a small single family and you're living in that, you're an owner occupant, your taxes will probably go down. If you're in an expensive single family or a multifamily, your taxes are probably going up. If you're a certainly large apartment buildings, those there'd be significant increase because the rate would go up. So it's not just this, you know, everyone who gets an if we implemented it tomorrow, that everyone would get this benefit in the same way. It's a complicated conversation. One of the reasons we haven't implemented it is because both the previous city assessor and the current city assessor say it would take them about a year to do the calculations and get everything in order. And they'd probably need one to two more staff people in the assessing office just to process the applications for the owner occupancy exemption. So it's a significant undertaking. A lot of places like Everett's and Somerville's and Cambridge's did this a long time ago when the conversation was a little bit different because of the property values that we see today. But yeah, so we've talked about it a lot. I think I actually know too much about it because I don't know that I explained it particularly well right now. But we've talked about it every year that we've set the tax rate since I've been on the council and I know on prior councils before that. It would be a complicated undertaking, and it isn't the silver bullet that it's presented to be a lot of the time. But do I think it's a bad idea? No, and I'd be willing to move forward on it if folks felt we could make the time and effort and make it a priority personally. Next question is on The when would we expect to see changes to the high school vocational schedule, if we were able to move forward and if the negotiations were able to be concluded.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And I think, yeah, I think everybody who's everyone I've talked to talks about it gets that it's a heavy lift, but also that getting prepared to make that lift everyone's on that page. All right, we got two more questions left. We're about on time. Well, two and a half, there's a dueling questions for anyone who's seen it at the end and we'll take that one last, but just Rebecca's question is money from the override only required to go to the directed budget for the first year and after that could go anywhere else in the city budget. There's two answers to this question. Proposition two and a half date law requires that in the first year, it goes towards the specific purposes outlined in the question. Those appropriations would be made people would be hired, things would be purchased, contracts would be signed based on those things. In the second year, could the mayor and the school committee and the council then fire everybody that they just hired and go completely in another direction? And I mean, is it legally allowed? Yes, is it something that would be in the realm of possibility? Absolutely not. I think we've all been very, very clear that what the purpose of these overrides are for. And I don't think anyone here, I think we've already been very clear that we don't like the fact that there are layoffs and position cuts and things happening now. I certainly don't think that some massive bait and switch, I don't even know what we would put it into, to be honest. These are the things that we want to do with the money. These are the things that we think are the priority of the city. And yeah, there's a little bit of trust that comes from that, and I acknowledge that, but we've been very clear about what these priorities are. And a lot of it, especially on the school side, is also subject to negotiation, collective bargaining agreements, other laws, and that's what it is. We've been very clear that if these overrides are to pass, they would fund our schools, they would fund our educators, they would fund the people who work in our schools, they would hire a DPW street crew. And what I can say is that if the debt exclusion passes question six, that just have to go to the fire station. That's the law. They can only pay for the bond for the fire station, period. So that's the answer to that question. And can I just add to that?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Jenny. I want to move to wrap up on The last couple of questions. So we have dueling questions that I think probably none of us here on the panel are the people who should be answering these questions. So I would ask us not to answer them, but I will read them since they have been asked. They are, how could the CC and SC accept a pay raise when you say we're in dire need of money and then ask for an override? And that has been also countered with the question, how can we increase CC and SC pay to increase diversity on those bodies so they represent the city's diverse population? Those are both. viewpoints that people hold. We have a final question here, which is what is the impact of union student leadership, either having had posed or unsure yet on the overhead set exclusion. So that's that the fire union is not supportive. And the teachers union has not yet made a decision. I don't I don't know what the impact of it is. Certainly, I would hope that in the case of the fire union, that they could put aside some of their differences with the mayor. And I think the funding of this project and that we are prioritizing funding a new fire station should be considered independently of the disputes that the mayor and the fire union have had over fire station design and other matters. That's my personal opinion. And I know I've spoken to a lot of our educators about these questions and some support, some oppose, and I'll leave it up to the Medford Teachers Association and other educator unions here in the city to make the decision that they need to make in the time that they need to make it. With that, I wanted to wrap up quickly unless, Paul, Jenny, you have anything else you wanna add before I just put out a few pitches to the folks who are still here.
[Zac Bears]: There are also, thanks, Paul. To that point, there's also two more opportunities coming up for folks. If you thought of a question as we're wrapping up, or you think of one after you leave here tonight, Next Tuesday at 6pm we have a city council committee of the whole meeting in the city council chamber, where we will be talking kind of doing a similar q amp a style format, you'll hear from members of the council and basically answering the questions they feel like they can answer asked by the public. Then we also have an in-person version of this event, an Invest in Medford community forum, Monday, October 21st at 7pm, and that's going to be at the library. So those are two more opportunities that we have for very similar events. As Paul noted, you can reach out to us, investinmedford.gmail.com, or reach out to your elected officials. Our contact information is online as well. Jenny, if you want to say anything, and then I'm just going to put a couple of resources in the chat really quick.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks so much, Jenny. On that note, just want to share again, this was an Invest in Medford community forum. If you're interested, you can go to investinmedford.com where you can find out some more information here. You can see our wonderful photos and of course, but we have the explanations on the three questions, including their full text. We have our impact calculator based on fiscal 24 assessed values from the assessor's office and the division of local services override impact calculator here. If you are, we're compelled tonight to get more involved, you can get involved. You can submit a testimonial about why you support these questions. You can donate to the campaign so that we can get our message out there in these last three and a half, four weeks, get a yard sign. We still have a few left, Not many. And you can sign up to Canvas and talk to your neighbors about these important issues. There's also some endorsements up here. We do have endorsements from 11 of the 14 city elected officials. We have endorsements from three of our four state elected officials. We have a few organizations up here hoping to add some more soon. And this great FAQ page. which really gets into some of the details on what would be the impact if the overrides don't pass? Why do we need the overrides? What are overrides and debt exclusions? How will they impact your taxes? And then just some of the information about how to measure taxes compared to other cities. You know, one thing that I think is just really important to note, our residential tax rate is the 93rd lowest out of the 97 MA cities and towns with population over 20,000. And there's just a lot more here on the website. So if you are looking for more information, looking to share, looking to join our campaign, you can go to investinmedford.com. And we really hope that folks here will strongly consider and commit to vote yes on questions six, seven, and eight on Tuesday, November 5th. Mail voting has already started. Early voting starts Saturday, October 19th. And election day, if you're voting at your polling location, if you haven't made your choice by Tuesday, November 5th, polling locations will be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on November 5th. So we really, really hope that everyone here will vote. And I think it's fair to say that this panel hopes that folks will vote yes. Thanks everybody for a wonderful evening. Really appreciate everyone being here and hope to see you over the next few weeks as we lead up to election day.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole. October 2nd, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. Since we're in hybrid mode, we will have all roll call votes. 24473 presented by Mayor Brianna Locurn, Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request. And we have a revised letter from today. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Replacement of the water heater at Brooks Elementary School, $267,000. Roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. replacement of light poles in city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. City Hall elevator repair unforeseen costs and upgrades of electrical and fire alarm systems needed for code compliance, 75,000. Repairs at Brooks Estate, use of funds must comply with city procurement policies and procedures and state procurement law in the amount of 55,000. As your honorable body knows, the capital stabilization fund currently has a balance of $4,538,465 given the appropriations made on September 17th, 2024. If all of the above are approved, the capital stabilization fund would have $3,923,737 that remains. Any appropriation from the stabilization account requires a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. At the City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, October 2nd, Assistant Superintendent Peter Cushing will be available for questions on the water heater replacement. City Engineer Owen Wartella will be here for the roadway and patching project. Superintendent of Ours, Steven Randazzo on the light poles and Facilities Director Paul Riggi on the elevator project. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And we will not be talking about the engine three pump right now. That's looking like they're going to need to reassess the project and the cost for that. So that is not on the table right now. given where we're at, just wanted to see if anyone had any questions before we move into discussion of individual items. I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I don't see the chief of staff or the mayor present, but Director Riggi is gonna go check in that office right now and see if they can pop over.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions or comments by members of the Council before we move into the specific items? Seeing none, while we wait for Director Riggi to return, we'll start. We'll go in order. We'll start with the water heater at the Brooks School. We'll go to Assistant Superintendent Cushing, if you could give us a little information on the project and see if we have any questions from members of the council.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for Superintendent Cushing? Seeing none, I have one. Oh, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I have two questions. One was, What did the, you know, we're looking at 267,000 here for this system. What did the all electric system, what were the estimates coming in for that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And it sounds like we were able to make the initial water heaters last 20 years or so.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Council Desiro.
[Zac Bears]: Before we go to bid, we have to authorize funding. So the authorization is based on the estimate.
[Zac Bears]: I think if the bid comes in under the appropriated amount, then the balance reverts to the fund. This is the most it could cost. Well, this is the, I mean, unless the bids come in higher. Right. So this is what I think the best estimate for authorization and then the bidding process will determine the final cost. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: From what Mr. Cushing said, the hot water heaters and all the other new buildings that early 2000s buildings have already been replaced. But the HVAC systems and Mr. Director, if you want to come up and say anything about the general condition. I know we've talked a lot about the middle schools, HVAC being a significant investment that's needed.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on this item? We'll go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think we'll see where we are at the end of the presentations and hopefully we can refer items out to the regular meeting. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Superintendent, thank you for answering them. We'll move to the next item.
[Zac Bears]: Next item is roadway patching in the amount of $112,728. And that I believe is our city engineer.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for City Engineer? Councilor Kelly?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any other questions on the roadway patching? Seeing none, I have one. When we say that the square yard cost went up $10 a square yard, what is that from and what is that to?
[Zac Bears]: All right Do you have any understanding as to why that's happening or I think asphalt is expensive I
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I just didn't know if there was any specific supply chain stuff that you might know about that we might not know about. Um, but I will just note that, uh, 10, you know, the percentage change there is huge. It's almost 25% higher than we thought. And 25 is a lot more than 2.5. All right, any other questions regarding roadway patching? Seeing none, I will go to the next item. Mr. Randazzo, replacement of light poles in the city parking lots in the amount of $105,000. What do we got, Steve?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Rendazzo? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I had one question just when the poll came down, what was the, did it hit anything? What was the impact of it?
[Zac Bears]: All right, and was it on a sidewalk, parking lot, roadway?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right. And I know you weren't around, did it happen late at night or?
[Zac Bears]: You don't know, yeah, it's okay. Just obviously wanna not have light poles falling on cars or people or anything else, so.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, we'll move to our next item, which is the elevator repair unforeseen costs. We'll go to Director Riggi.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any other questions for Director Riggi on the elevator?
[Zac Bears]: When you have some info, if you could send us an email, we'll get it out. Great, thank you. All right, next item we have is the, Of course, I lost my screen here. Is it Brooks Estate? Brooks Estate, great. I'm familiar with this project. We do have our Brooks Estate president, Carly Nessen here. Welcome, Carly. I can go quickly through just to say that this is a request for $55,000. for repairs at the Brooks Estate. The breakdown of that, I'm sure Carly can go into more details, but there are some roof repairs and snow repairs and insulation and radiator work that need to happen as well as drywall repairs, walls and ceilings in the caretaker spaces and floors in the caretaker spaces as well as some pest control in the attic. And that is important because we are seeking new caretakers at the estate to oversee and watch and keep safe the city property that is the Brooks Estate and the Shepherd Brooks Manor. So with that, I will go to Carly Nessen, president of the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for President Nesson? Councilor Scarpelli, I see a hand raised.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I will go to Carly on active projects. I think I'll have to unmute you. This is preventative maintenance, so it doesn't fall under CPA.
[Zac Bears]: Maintenance and emergency repairs.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any other questions regarding the Brooks Estate item, the repairs at the Brooks Estate? Seeing none, we do have the Chief of Staff, who is, I'm sure, working diligently on another thing right now, and if you need a minute, I can give you a minute, but Councilor Scarpelli did have a question, I think, potentially related to the fire item that came off the agenda. Councilor Scarpelli, if you wanna restate the question.
[Zac Bears]: you. Thank you. Thank you. Chief Stephanie's area.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council, I'm going to refer the paper with the items to the regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? We have a raised hand for participation. Give me one second here. We'll go to Gaston Fiore. Or Councilor Scarpelli, is that, do you want to go?
[Zac Bears]: I'll go to vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to public participation. Gaston Fiore. I will ask you to unmute and you'll have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We had a motion on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Refer out of committee to the regular meeting. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. We have a little more discussion. Chief of staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're in the middle.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative, none negative motion passes. Any further discussion? We could talk about average new growth plus two and a half percent being around 3.25 to which is about 20% of 25%, but no one wants to hear me talk about percents. We just don't have enough money to run the city. On the motion adjourned by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: All right, Councilor Tseng. Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, motion passes, meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Hi there, sorry about that. I am currently sitting at the intersection of Main Street and South Street. So subject matter expert at the moment. I just wanted to note a thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you to the Bike Commission and to Emily O'Brien for your work on this. And thank you to Todd for being our liaison with MassDOT. But I also just wanted to note I think it's essential that we get this right. Medford wasn't built for the level of car volume that we have now. And just because we pasted an overpass of Route 16 and the highway through it doesn't mean that the rest of our streets can actually handle the car volume that we have today. And that's why it's essential that we move in the direction that we're moving to make Medford more accessible for all, not just people with cars. I'm one who uses my car all the time, but I would use other modes of transportation if I felt like I could get where I was going in a reasonable amount of time. The Craddock Bridge is the only crossing of the Mystic River for about a mile or more on either side of the east or west. And we know that it was deeply impacted by the massive volumes of car traffic that have been throughput through that bridge and through the intersections that we're talking about. by Interstate 93 and by the overbuilt Route 16 overpass. And I think it's essential that we get this signalization and rebuild of Main and Mystic right, because what we're talking about in Medford Square and what we're talking about on Mystic Ave is returning to a people-centered era, not a car-centered era. All of the spots on Mystic Ave just south of the bridge and just south of the 16 overpass used to be a vibrant walkable neighborhood. Medford Square used to be a vibrant walkable neighborhood. The car supremacy and the building of the highway destroyed so much of the community that was built there. And now that we're trying to restore it, this isn't the essential link. to making it work. So I appreciate the bike commission's work. I appreciate everyone's conversation here in this meeting. I also think putting that layer of what do we want our community to look like and how do we want to make sure that it's safe for everyone to have community and link together in our squares is an important part of the conversation, too. I don't think the 25% design hit that mark, but I'm hopeful that upcoming designs will. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Council, October 1st, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. Records. The records of the meeting of September 17th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Leming. Councilor Leming, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion approved by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. Reports of committees 24-036 and 24-461 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, September 17th, 2024. Report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Are there any further comment or discussion? On the motion to approve Councilors are seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-354 and 24-370 offered by Councilor Leming. Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, September 24th, 2024. Report to follow. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Is there a motion to approve?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none, and negative. The motion passes. 24033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and Permitting Committee, September 25th, 2024. Report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins approved, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any affirmative, none negative motion passes. Hearings request for 24457 request for amendment to previously approved grant location National Grid. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Present Affairs. Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, that is tabled. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers. 24464, a petition for a common victualized license, Nazar Market. Do we have Nazar Market present in person or on Zoom? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Um, what do we want to do about that? Mr. Clerk, do we want to try to find him? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion to table by Councilor Callahan, we can
[Zac Bears]: Great. Right now we are taking you up. Sorry about that. You're good. Welcome before us. I will go to councilor Scarpelli of licensing and permitting and science subcommittee.
[Zac Bears]: 30 or 40 minutes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. If you can get him on the phone, Councilor, he misses the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: So great. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: So this is open if we just want a motion to, we could recess or we could table and then take it back up, whatever folks would prefer.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table, Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. We are temporarily tabling this. Motions, orders, and resolutions. 24474 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, resolution to discuss Tufts University's decision to disinvest from the Neighborhood Fellows Program, be it resolved, whereas Tufts University benefits from many services offered by the City of Medford, the City of Somerville, and other surrounding cities, while participating in the pilot Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, with the understanding that the community benefits from educational programs offered by Tufts University, be it resolved that the City Council discuss the potential negative impact of the disinvestment in the Neighborhood Fellows Program at Tufts University. Council Lizara.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. We'll go to members of the council first. Anyone from the council have any comments on this paper? I do. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to know vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? I do have a question or two for Rocco that I wasn't going to bring up, but then he brought him up, so I'm going to ask him. Would anyone mind making an amendment to the paper to the effect of my questions? And Councilor Lazzaro, would you mind communicating them to him since he sent you an email?
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I would just request that we ask for more details on how often the pilot agreement is negotiated. He mentioned a specific amount of property taxes that are paid to the city. I would like to know what entity is paying those. Is it Tufts University? Is it Walnut Hill Properties, their private development arm, or is it some other entity? And I would like to know how they estimate the value of their community benefits and whether the community that they say they're benefiting is involved in determining the value of those benefits or what those benefits actually are.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that Councilor Lazzaro, since I can't make amendments from the chair. All right. With that, I will go to public participation. If you would like to speak on this item in public participation and you're in the room, you can stand at the podium. If you would like to discuss this item and you're on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom, and we will alternate between Zoom and in-person comment. Each person who would like to comment will have three minutes, so please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. All right, we'll go to the podium first. Please give your name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and thank you for being here. I'm going to go to Chelli on Zoom. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Um, yeah, if I tell you, if you could share the comments and then I can go to Joe, is that okay? That's, I just, that's what the rules say.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chelly. I'm going to go to Joe. Joe, I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Joe. Any further comments by members of the council? Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Any objections to the amendment? No, just as long as you accept it as the main sponsor. Great. I did have a chance very quickly to look at the community benefits document. Over half of the value claimed by Tufts is financial aid. It's not divided by Medford and Somerville. It's not clear how much of that 1.43 million is coming from Walnut Hill, which is a private development arm of the university and not Tufts University itself. So I'm hoping to get a little bit more clarity from Mr. DeRico in response to our questions. And what's the motion here on the paper at large? Would you like to refer it to a committee or? As amended.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion to receive and place on file as amended by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I move that the negative motion passes. Do we want to take back up Nazar Market?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to take, so motion of Councilor Tseng to take paper 24464 off the table, seconded by... Second. Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So the permanent motion passes 24464 petition for a common victor's license and is our market. Now we'll go to Councilor Scarpelli licensing permitting signs. Thank you. It's Councilor Scarpelli for meeting with our petitioner and getting the information.
[Zac Bears]: Can we just have your name and your address for our records, please?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the convictioner's license seconded by Councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hold a question and answer session with Medford senior citizens to discuss the definitions and terminology regarding the proposed Proposition 2 1⁄2 overrides and the proposed debt exclusion measure. Councilor Scarpello.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just a couple of things. I am happy to schedule, without the permission of the mayor, a meeting October 15th. It's a little bit so next week is the week after because that's we have available but before next regular meeting. October 15th. We go as long as we need to go we'll do it as a committee of the whole it will be televised publicized and we can have the topic the questions and answers from the public regarding the proposition 2 and a half.
[Zac Bears]: If we could incorporate that as an amendment to the paper, um, There are a lot of laws around what cities can and can't do in terms of advocacy. And I know that I think the city is trying to protect all of its employees from being accused of violating those laws. There is also on the city website, medfordma.org, something more than just the text of the override questions. There's an explainer from the city that has been reviewed by council so as to not sway into the legal questions around this, but if folks look at that, there's a button right on the front page of the city website that includes a municipal explanation. I got you, Anna, and I have you, has an explanation of the overrides from municipal perspective. I do just want to clarify a couple of things regarding the city assessor. The data that is being used regarding calculators, both from the DLS and online is the fiscal 24, the current year tax data, current year tax assessments. I personally have been in multiple meetings with the assessor for over a year regarding the process of this, so take that for what you will. I've been in those rooms, I've had those conversations. And in terms of assessments, The tax year is always based, the assessments for the tax year are always based on the prior year. So when we're talking about 2025, they only have complete sales data from 2023. That's what's used to adjust the assessment. That's the same every year. That's always the process. And it always is. As we all know, the tax rate setting process happens in December after those valuations are calculated. I have been in communication with the assessor. All of the data is data from the assessor's database or from the Division of Local Services of the State Department of Revenue. So that is what is out there. The tax rate process will essentially follow its normal course where we will have meetings in November and December regarding the tax rate. and we will either be setting the tax rate based on a yes vote or a no vote. And that's how that will happen. So I just wanted to say that I have met with the assessor multiple times in groups and one-on-one about this process, and he is informed and was informed and was a part of that.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, I, I met with him in person, so there wouldn't be anything on paper, but yeah, meetings, meetings tend to happen by talking to people. So I will go first to vice president Collins, and then we'll go to councilor Zara and councilor Callahan, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would suggest that you reach out to them and have them go through their own process. They would have to do their own process.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I would contact them yourself and see if they can set something up through their own process.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng. I just don't want to add another meeting for them without asking.
[Zac Bears]: All right, any further comments from members of the council? So what I have here is amending the paper to include residents and parents, to request that the council on aging be able to do outreach to senior citizens, to invite them to the meeting, to request community liaisons be able to translate the information that the city has made available, the questions and the information, the city municipal information sheet reviewed by legal, and that this is all to refer to committee of the whole, and I will schedule that for October 15th. Does that sound right? Anything I missed? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, council and aging, community liaisons, and PTOs, got it. Okay. All right, and that was by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by everyone, and seconded by Vice President Collins. We'll go to public participation, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in person. Please form a line behind Gaston, and we'll start with Gaston. Gaston, you'll have three minutes, or we'll go to Paulette, right? Yes, we'll go to Paulette. You'll have three minutes, then we'll go to Zoom, then we'll come back to the room.
[Zac Bears]: This will be a Tuesday meeting, 6 p.m. in this room and on Zoom and on YouTube.
[Zac Bears]: Tuesday, October 15th.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to zoom. We'll go to Jennifer on zoom, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will note there are also a number of quite a few private events that have happened or will be happening as well to talk to members of the public. So I won't get into that any more than I am here, but I do suggest people be on the lookout for those. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to no one on Zoom. So we'll go to the podium, name and address of the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just to that point, encourage anyone listening to look at the exemptions available for property taxes, the deferral program, et cetera. This council has made it a very important point to maximize to the utmost what the state will allow us to do for those programs. We have done that. And we have also tied our programs to go up whenever the state increases the amount. So in the past, they didn't go up for a long time. There were huge gaps between us and other communities. We have corrected that and they will go up automatically as the state increases. the conditions for those programs. Go to Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Mr. Castagnetti, I believe. Mr. Castagnetti, I'm asking you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. I'll restart your time.
[Zac Bears]: Tuesday, October 15th.
[Zac Bears]: That is for a $30 million bond for a new fire headquarters.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, question six, it's a $2 per year cost to finance the payment of bonds for a new fire headquarters. The bond, the total.
[Zac Bears]: That is a debt exclusion.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the way that a debt exclusion works is that you have it for the amount of the bond for the construction of the project, and that is paid over many years. The bond amount is estimated to be about $30 million, and the estimate of the annual impact is about $2 million.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that is an override.
[Zac Bears]: That would be $3.5 million per year.
[Zac Bears]: Question number eight is also an override, and that amount is $4 million per year.
[Zac Bears]: There's no provision in proposition two and a half law to exempt seniors beyond the exemptions generally allowed for the property tax, which the city already.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Given the format of the event and what's been discussed by Councilor Scarpelli, I think what we can do is we can prioritize A, and I'm sure everyone in the room would be happy to do so, get seniors seated in the front of the room, take their questions first. And when it comes to the bickering and yelling, I can only do so much, but I will encourage everyone at the beginning of the meeting to keep it civil. I think given the format of the event, we're gonna have to have slightly different rules. I think keep questions a little bit shorter. I would request also the answers from my fellow Councilors be kept as brief as possible. and we can try to get through everybody in a timely manner. But I will now that I'm aware of the request and the format, we'll take all of those factors into consideration and make sure that we hear from our seniors in a respectful and prompt manner. Um, given the format that we're talking about with a committee of the whole, we can't, uh, do we can't, the council can't host a public meeting and say only certain people can come. Um, I do think it is also a way around some of these questions that Councilor Scarpelli noted around the legal questions. He's asked if we could have a private forum at the senior center. It seems like that'll take some time. I think this is a way to expedite the process and I think not a private Not necessarily private, but it's an open forum. Would it be a, not a private, but not a council meeting?
[Zac Bears]: Right, so I think this is the way within our authority we're able to accelerate this. I'm gonna take all those factors into account. I will plan for as best as I can to incorporate those factors. Thank you. Just one second, I'm gonna go to Zoom. We'll go to Paul on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Paul, I've asked you to unmute. All right. I will go back to the podium. We'll see if we can get back to Paul in a minute.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know what the hybrid space is.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes. I mean, I personally try to mention it every time we talk about taxes. We mentioned it during the tax rate meeting. We can keep mentioning it. It is also, and I know you said you didn't have the computer, but it is available on the assessor's office website. And I will, not necessarily for you, but for anyone watching, The library is a great resource. If you don't have a computer to access that information, it's open until 9 p.m. most weekdays. And there's a ton of computers thanks to that great project that for folks who may not otherwise be able to get that information. So I just want to note that for anyone maybe watching on.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Any further comments by members of the public? I'm going to try Mr. Garrity one more time. Paul? I'm going to request to unmute you, and if you could click the button and give us your name and address for the record. Paul, a pop-up should have just come on your computer asking you to unmute. All right, do we have any other comments from members of the public or from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Which calculation?
[Zac Bears]: the calculation being that is both on the city website and that that is referenced by private group that is from the division of local services.
[Zac Bears]: Well in the assessor. So the way it works is if you take the the 7.5 million, and then you put the 2 million at that exclusion, that takes you to 9.5. You go to the DLS website, which has the override calculator, and that will give you the override amount. And then that is taken, the information for the address calculator is taken directly from the assessor's database, multiplied by the DLS calculator, and that's how you calculate the amount.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think we're getting a bit into the specifics or minutiae of the issue.
[Zac Bears]: That's the data is from the assessor. I've spoken with the assessor multiple times about the data. They did not do the multiplication, but the data is from them. So it's their tax rate. their assessed values. If there's an individual case where there's an error in the assessed value in the assessor's database, I could work with you and the assessor to correct that error. But all of the data is from our tax rates from the State Division of Local Services and from the assessor's database. But not the update assessments, correct? Right. Well, they're based on the assessments we have now, current year. Right.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I did speak with the assessor a couple of weeks ago, and he actually expects that next year's bills will increase. The normal increase will happen no matter what in assessments, not to be as bad as prior years. looking forward to those meetings on the tax rate and the assessed values. Any further questions or comments? Go to the podium one more time.
[Zac Bears]: No, that includes the interest, the estimated annual. No, it's a $30 million bond.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't say over a 15 year period.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't say it was over a 15 year period. It's until the bonds paid off. The $2 million includes debt service costs, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: It is the estimated debt service for a $30 million bond.
[Zac Bears]: It's probably actually going to be slightly lower because the tax rate's going to go down because the values are going to go up.
[Zac Bears]: It will most likely actually be a little lower, you're correct.
[Zac Bears]: No, that's what's happening. So you're correct, what happens with how Proposition 2.5 works is The total levy is increased by the limit amount. That's the numerator of our equation. Yep. The denominator of our equation is the total assessable assess taxable value. Sorry, total assessed value of taxable property. Right. The total that denominator total that's in fiscal 25, if no override were to pass. So the override impact is actually likely to be less than it is on the calculator because of that impact, because the values are going up so much faster, but you're also correct. That's just the calculation for the whole city. Then you get the tax rate. The tax rate is then multiplied by your assessed value. And so yes, there's disparate impact. on different properties. The single family class, for example, has been going up in value much faster than other classes of property. Proposition two and a half is an incredibly complicated, convoluted law that is not a good way to set tax policy. It's very difficult for people to understand it. And it places these artificial limits that make it really are not grounded in any sort of economic science. They were just a fun number that people decided to pick in 1980 to get a law passed. So I completely agree with you. It's a convoluted, complicated law.
[Zac Bears]: So that's one opinion on well, that's my personal opinion.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know what Well, I think we can both agree that there's complications in the calculation.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. But in your to answer your question specifically the tax rate in fiscal 25 is likely to be lower than the fiscal 24 rate.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And that's how it is every year. Right. Right. So, yep, it's pretty good estimate. Thank you. Any further questions on Zoom? I'm going to go to Marie Izzo.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We can invite them. I don't want to schedule a meeting for them.
[Zac Bears]: I will invite them to attend.
[Zac Bears]: We'll try, oh, hands down. Any further comment by members in the room? Seeing none, I'll go back to Mr. Castagnetti. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment seeing none on the motion of councilor Scarpelli second by vice president Collins to refer This paper as amended to committee of the whole to amend the paper to include inviting residents and parents and to request that the Council on Aging, PTOs and community liaisons conduct outreach and that community liaisons are able to translate the city produced materials regarding the override and debt exclusion questions. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Cohen. She said she votes yes. I think we gotta have a verbal.
[Zac Bears]: So the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes as amended. I actually need Councilor Scrupley for you to take the chair for this one too. Sorry. It's for my paper on the MCAS.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll just, uh, would you like me to, I can do it if you, unless you want to do it.
[Zac Bears]: So thank you. Um, just, uh, the text is, uh, whereas access to high quality publicly funded education is a guaranteed right. written into the Massachusetts Constitution, and whereas the goal of public education is to teach students essential foundational skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and to develop critical thinkers, engaged citizens, and lifelong learners. And whereas the bedrock of the Commonwealth's world-class public education system is strong, statewide standards that are uniform throughout our public schools, and whereas the MCAS is significantly limited in its ability to accurately and effectively measure whether students are meeting the Commonwealth standards and developing the skills they need to thrive after high school, and whereas the most effective measures of whether students are meeting our strong statewide standards in developing the skills they need to succeed in college, the workforce, and beyond, Our educator-led assessments such as projects, papers, tests, and group activities that are conducted throughout the school year. And whereas the punitive use of MCAS as a high school graduation requirement has restricted curriculum and shifted the focus of education in our public schools towards meeting a test score instead of fostering an environment of creativity, critical thinking, and real teaching and learning that helps students realize their full potential. And whereas pediatricians, researchers, and school Councilors have warned of the severe impact of high-stakes testing like the MCAS graduation requirement on students' mental health and well-being. and whereas standardized test requirements notoriously stack the deck against students of color, ESL students, and students with learning disabilities, and whereas using MCAS testing as a high school graduation requirement has prevented or delayed thousands of students from earning a diploma, thereby interrupting or derailing education or career plans with especially harmful impacts on students of color, low-income students, students with disabilities, and students for whom English is their second language. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we support question two, replacing the MCAS graduation requirement on the November 5th general election ballot.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And I'm sure you being in the schools, being a teacher, you've seen the impact. I was one of the early classes that had to pass the MCAS to graduate high school. A lot of these requirements, you know, ours came into place from the Education Reform Act in the early 90s, but this was really blasted nationwide by the education reform movement under No Child Left Behind. At its peak, 35 states required a high-stakes standardized test to pass and graduate high school. You had to pass it. That's down to eight states. So it used to be 35, we're down to eight. We're one of the only eight who are left. And the reason is it doesn't work. It doesn't actually measure what we're trying to measure. It doesn't actually help anyone get anywhere. And it harms, particularly targeted harms at groups of students who maybe they passed all their classes, maybe they did all their projects, maybe they passed all their tests, maybe they have all their grades that they need to have, but they struggle with the test. They don't get a high school diploma, even though they passed all their classes and their teachers think they should get one. And I think You know, at the core, that's who we're trying to protect here. That's the most focused group that's gonna benefit from this, but I think it benefits everyone in the schools too. Not to have their classmates worried about anxiety about passing the test, not to have teachers feeling like they have to teach to the test, not to have students worried that even if they do everything right, there might be this one little thing that doesn't go the way they want it to go and they can't get their degree or their diploma. So, you know, for a lot of people, the MCAS is just some boring days. For some kids, it's the worst five days of their lives. I don't think for any teacher, any student, it's a good activity that they feel at the end of it benefited their education. And that's why I think you shouldn't have the high stakes requirement on it. If it was up to me, maybe you'd go a different direction altogether. This question doesn't get rid of the test. You can, the assessment is still there so that we can punish teachers and districts if kids don't do great on it. So it doesn't go as far as I'd like it to go, being someone who's been in our schools and been an advocate for our schools and worked with our teachers, not just in Medford, but around the Commonwealth. So it doesn't go as far as I'd like to go, but it does hit that most difficult part of the MCAS, which is the high stakes requirement that really hurts specific groups of students and creates that anxiety and teach the test mentality. So I think it's great that it's on the ballot and I really hope it passes and I hope tonight we can endorse it. And our school committee endorsed it last week. Yes. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I think to at least one of Gaston's points, I just wanted to add in the, I think that the passage of this, a yes vote on this, which I'm hoping we'll see on November 5th, will really encourage the state legislature to take more seriously the MCEIA or IEA, I can't remember, it's the mass commission on alternative, it's basically the alternative educational assessment, innovative educational assessment, I think it is MCEIA. Yeah, they're looking at that portfolio requirement, bringing that back so that we can have a statewide requirement that's not a high stakes standardized test. And I really hope that that innovation will go in there. And I also just want to direct some folks, similar to Councilor Scarpelli's experience, there's a Boston Globe article yesterday, I think, about Deb McCarthy. Deb is someone I count as a close friend. We organized together for many years. She was a teacher in Hall forever, and she started off early on in MCAS, and you can read this in the story. She was the MCAS data czar for her school. She thought it was going to be doing these great things, helping get that data out, helping to provide more knowledge to to teachers to help them teach better. She did that for a few years, then she started to see the impacts to the point where a few years ago she became what she called, and some other teachers in the district, conscientious objectors. They refused to proctor the MCAS exam. And they were sitting with the kids who had been opted out of the MCAS exam as well and working with them on those days. She's now vice president of the MTA statewide, a huge leader on this issue. But that profile, I think, is really a great example of a teacher who was teaching before MCAS started, knows what it was like, thought MCAS was going to be this good thing, really gave it a chance, saw the negative impacts, and then has been organizing to try to bring us to a different standard for a really long time. And I think that is just exactly the story people need to hear to get behind this question, the experience of this in our schools, what our teachers have seen. what the students have been impacted. So I refer people to take a look at that Deb McCarthy profile in the Boston Globe sometime in the last couple of days.
[Zac Bears]: Now I know I don't want to let it go though. It's just you give that to Dina. You're done for Georgia. You get that to Dina. All right, public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak about anything we haven't talked about yet? All right, seeing no hands on Zoom, no one in the chamber. Any unfinished business? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Loehrig, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I will share now. It's wired, so you don't lose Wi-Fi ever if you're plugged in there. It may be a solution for if we have Wi-Fi issues. Looks like we're fine now, but it was just a note if you wanted to present.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair. To Councilor Callaghan's point, I think maybe the easiest way to move in that direction would be to do mixed use one on those parcels that are kind of on that leg of the, I'm a pro option B, I'm pro incentive zoning. That would be what I would move for. But I think that's a well taken point. And maybe that leg could be like MX one, and maybe it's even MX one with no incentive zoning. So it stays at four stories. Either way on that. But I think that might make sense for like, just those parcels that are almost southwest of the park line, if that makes sense on the map, kind of that dog that comes out of that district. So that's just my suggestion there. I think on the lot coverage question, I think the stormwater and all that and the green score is great, but I also just think the open space minimum. Minimums are really good too. I think we'll, you know, even with increased building size, we're going to see increased green space because right now, even at 50% lot coverage, it's 100% impermeable. So that's kind of where I think we'll get a benefit there. And then maybe even additional benefit from incentive and green score. I had a question about the maximum setbacks, especially in the mixed-use two and mixed-use three, and even the mixed-use one. It just seems like a lot to allow a 20-foot setback in addition to when we're already gonna have to have an 18-foot street setback. And I'm just wondering if that might make it look disjointed or affect the frontage that we're trying to create. So I'm wondering what your thought was on that. It's like the three slash 20. The minimum makes sense, the maximum seems really big.
[Zac Bears]: And I guess my question with that being, If we just write that in as the setback, could they just do whatever they want, put a parking lot in there?
[Zac Bears]: And we're gonna write that into the performance standards for the district? Yeah. Okay, great, because that's just my concern with the 20 foot. And I know we're gonna talk about the other front setback, street setback thing later, so I won't go into that. I just also think, I mean, and maybe Danielle could speak to this a little bit, the proposed additional adding in the parcels, it looks like we've agreed, and I think we may have voted on including the stuff between South and Thomas Street in the MX1 district, so that's why that's in the map, so that's good, that's like on slide four, it's the black shaded parcels, so that's, we've already agreed we wanna include that. dotted line areas. Danielle, it sounded like you had gone out a little bit in the neighborhood. Were you able to go out in any of those parts of the neighborhood? Okay. My inclination would be to say, just leave the ones with mystic affrontage in and at least for now, it might just simplify our process if we were to say for now, let's just leave the Mystic Ave frontage things in and we can come back when we're doing the neighborhood zoning and decide if we want to put some sort of like step up in those dashed areas. Just because it's, you know, those are the places where it's most abrupt. And I think that's why we've, we're like, do we do it? Do we not do it? I could see an argument for the like Hancock Street, Crescent Street, Mystic Ave block, maybe more than the next block on Hancock Street. And then the Bonner Ave one is, the Bonner and Alexander one is just tough, right? It's what, eight or nine or 10 like residential houses that are just right there, whereas on the rest of the corridor, that was not allowed to be built. That would be my suggestion for those. I think we could talk about it later. I'd be willing to make it in the form of a motion to just include the yellow highlighted parcels in this first round and we can come back when we look at the neighborhood zoning around the dotted line ones. But I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say and what the planning department's thoughts are on that especially.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, and I think for Bonner and Alexander, my thought is you have basically what 10 to 15 year old new development that is the frontage on Mystic Ave. So if someone was to bundle those parcels, they're probably not knocking that thing down. So it's not even really on Mystic Ave if they bundled those and built those. So that is where I'm most inclined. And I tend to agree with you on that middle, the dotted lines around the Hancock Streets, Hancock Court, Hancock Ave, Hancock Street, I think. I mislabeled the Facebook event on the wrong one one time. go collect everybody. Um, yeah, so that's just my thought. I'll leave motions till the end of the discussion.
[Zac Bears]: Just wanted to clarify if I, sorry. I meant the parcels here on Hicks Ave. Here. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe, that was just an idea, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: It's really everything, I mean, if folks have been back there, you have whatever number rear Mystic Avenue, and then there's a private long road that's really like a parking lot, and that abuts the park and the school property, well, it abuts the park and then some industrial, basically anything that side of what is currently proposed as the commercial zone is what I'm thinking of.
[Zac Bears]: Like, it's basically what's abutting the school, the park and the public housing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just think we've already answered this question with the option B, which is defining maximum height by stories and not by amount of feet. And therefore, if someone wants to build 18 foot stories for life science, they can, or if they want to build 10 foot stories for residential, they can. And then we don't have to worry about having two different standards and trying to mix and match them. I just think that would be the way to go. I mean, mixed use three, you could end up I guess you could end up in a situation where a life science developer wants to build a tower. It seems unlikely to me that a life science developer wants to build a 14 story tower with 18 foot floors all the way up to 14 stories. Just seems like it's probably not going to happen. And if it was going to happen, or even if a developer proposed it, the discussion and site plan review would probably be, maybe don't do that. That's the only place where I think if we were to go with option B, there would be a conflict, because option B in the dimensional cinders doesn't have a maximum height by feet. It just has a maximum height by story. I don't know if that's intentional or unintentional, but if it was intentional, I really liked the idea.
[Zac Bears]: OK.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. I mean, I have some, the other reason I think perhaps just doing it without having two different height measurements, if you do this right now, if we were to put the height limits from, I guess, like the 12 story, right? Okay, maybe I'm misreading this. Would the maximum building height in mixed use three under option A be 54 plus 96? what would have to be to allow 12 stories if 11 of them were 10 feet tall and the other one was 18, right? So this is where I think we're gonna start having mathematical conflicts if we have two different measures of maximum height.
[Zac Bears]: And then so the total building height would be maximum 150 feet?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, because that's the only way you can get it's 128 feet if you had 12 stories at the minimum floor height.
[Zac Bears]: And I think my suggestion for that is have a minimum number of stories, a maximum number of stories, a minimum floor height per story, and a maximum floor height per story. And then I guess we could also have a maximum building height that is the number of stories times the maximum floor height, but then it's redundant. So that's just my thinking there to make sure that I understood this exactly right. But something like that. At that point, you're just multiplying two numbers that are already in there to get a third number. And I guess if people feel like that's helpful to have that third number, you can include that too. But I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. Because I was like, if the tower can only be 96 feet, then it can't be 12 stories. So thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Or, uh, yeah. Mixed use three and commercial. And I think that might be clear to the developer if they wanted to do life science too. Right. It's like, instead of having to go back and calculate, Oh, I can build 18 foot floors. It's like, Oh, the maximum height is what I need.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I think we have an oversimplified understanding of the commercial real estate market in the conversation. Downtown office buildings where foot traffic is significantly reduced are seeing significant reductions in valuation. I was talking to Ted. We're not seeing that reduction in valuation in our commercial properties. Most of them are seeing use. Some of the office buildings by Wellington are having some occupancy questions. But I think what we're talking about is a little bit different than like the downtown Boston valuations. And I don't think Cambridge, like Boston's desperately asking for a property tax class shift because their office buildings are, there's a, there's a ton of new class A offices that were built. And a lot of the valuation drops are in like a little bit older or significantly older class B office buildings where Companies don't need as much space. There's not as much foot traffic. I think we're not, we don't really have that exposure here. And I think we're not trying to build office buildings mostly. So I think we're in a better spot on that front. You know, Alicia can certainly speak better to and Sal to what's coming into the city, the clean tech. that kind of thing. But I think that would be more the direction. I'd be surprised if someone said, I want to plop an eight foot office bill, you know, a century bank like or Herb Chambers, whatever it is now, like, which is now becoming, leave that for another day. A building like that, right, where it's just an office tower. And he's even, Herb Chambers' proposal is to change that because that's not a good use for, even though he likes the property, it's not what he wants it to be or whatever. So that's where I think we'd probably be okay. Who knows, who knows what will happen, right? As Alicia noted, some of this requires having the rule of law, but yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Sal is a better answer than me, but I just think we're not nearly as exposed on the commercial front as like a Boston with the office issue.
[Zac Bears]: within sentence, all right, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I like it, I like it when things are. I like it when the code puts the correct answer. I was just going to say that my motion will be to adopt the option B, which is the mixed use three along the entire highway side and the commercial on the non-highway side with the incentive zoning. That's my suggestion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's, I was just going to say, add it to the use table. Is it right now? Is it in two or one?
[Zac Bears]: And the mix use one and two is more like neighborhood kind of like... Yeah, what does the R&D use line say right now in the proposed use table?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, if you click it, it opens it up.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, it's not letting me open it either. I wasn't able to open it.
[Zac Bears]: The setbacks question will probably iron itself out relatively quickly, I think.
[Zac Bears]: When I try to do that, it says can't access the file. Either way, I think I still have the floor. My point was generally being that I agree with including life science as a separate definition. I just think we need to make sure that it's allowed in the same places that R&D is allowed. And if we think that MX3 and commercial makes the most sense for that, that makes sense to me. Oh, yeah, this was in the document that was attached to the agenda. I was like, where is it? And that's the page I have open.
[Zac Bears]: So I think we just want to make sure we align those. Would Alicia, sorry, would Green Tech fall, like let's say they want to build Green Tech, is that manufacturing?
[Zac Bears]: If some Green Tech company wanted to
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think I got it down.
[Zac Bears]: It sounded like there was kind of a... Yeah, if we could just get to the nugget of what the difference like, what do we, what's the difference between doing the street setback and the other? I'm still not sure. I don't phrase it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, pros and cons.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. This is just for the Medford section.
[Zac Bears]: We don't need to do this in the MassDOT section, we're pretty sure, because the setbacks are basically already wide.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and that's more like we're going to have to negotiate with MassDOT to have it be something more active than bushes and grass, but that's a MassDOT question, not a property owner question.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And are the difference between these two options that one may be more legal than the other to ask of the property owners?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, what's October 9th is?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I have the motion. Great. It's six bullet points. I'll just send it now. guys. Um I'll read it. It is. Promotion to move forward with drafting based on land East option be with incentive zoning. Um adjust the discussed parcels on the southwest end of Hicks Motion to add life science to use table and align slash update definitions of research and testing laboratory manufacturing and the scientific research accessory use and allow them either by right or special permit and the proposed mixed use three and commercial districts. I do not add the parcels to these zones that do not have Mystic Ave frontage between Bonner Ave, Alexander Ave, and Crescent Street, Malvern Terrace, Hancock Court. So that would be like that inner portion, the kind of L-shaped one, as well as the stuff right behind the Harrow's Chicken Pie and the Dunkin' Donuts. And finally move ahead with assessing the viability of street setback option A, the 15 feet plus three foot building setback and incorporating that into the final language.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yeah. Just the no incentive zoning at the, just that little HICSAB mixed use one kind of, I don't know if we want to call it that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just that, that's, exactly.
[Zac Bears]: I'm here, can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: I can.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. I was honestly trapped in an elevator. Everett fired to get there and get me out. It was brutal. Oh, wow.
[Zac Bears]: No, I wish. It was brutal. It was about 48 minutes. It wasn't funny. That's probably one of the best excuses we've heard yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah. I can have him give me a call.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah, so as far as the partial goes, the street work is almost wrapped up for DOT. But that really has not much to do with the building. The building is the elevator. So we're waiting for the elevator inspection by the state. We have paid the 2,500 to have it expedited, but I still don't have a date. So as soon as that happens, I will have final sign off from the commissioner. I would like to think it's going to be the end of this month. September 28th has been our goal the entire time. If we're going to hit that, I'd say 75% yes, 25% no. If not, then it's the week after that. So I know we're really, really close to getting the building all wrapped up as well as the street work. How it's been going, it's been great. I mean, the turnout from the city has been excellent. We're getting bombarded with private requests. We've had wedding requests. We've had all sorts of people requesting just to have their Christmas parties there, weddings there. Really exciting, really fun to see. I think the smartest thing we did was get the private security company, Commonwealth Security. They check everyone at the door. So everyone's ID is checked. You have to have a wristband or a stamp to get in to drink in there. So it's been really nice seeing the turnout.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. That was the smartest thing we did and they've been excellent. Um, we really, it's really been happy crowds, a lot of families. Um, so it will be nice to get the second floor open cause we are going to be 21 plus up there. It's just nice to kind of have adults enjoy a section and get away from the kids.
[Zac Bears]: Until we get that elevator inspection sign off the 1 kind of unknown of the rest of this is that's when the other stuff is very easy. We've got the stairs report. Everything else is really, really quick and easy. That's the 1 thing that I'm waiting on.
[Zac Bears]: It's been awesome. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: The next 10 days or 60 days? 30 days. I mean, I can't imagine I'd be here at the end of October saying we're still in the same spot, but no, I do. Again, I'm really hopeful for September 28th, but if it's not then, it's the weekend. It's the week after. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, exactly. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: So Friday nights, we're looking at a DJ from 8 to 11. On Saturdays, we're looking at live music bands from 9 to 12 or 8 to 11. During the day, we were actually thinking about more of like an acoustic during the day, but it's just we need the room. It gets filled in there pretty quickly. And so that's really what we're doing. We're showing the TVs, those two big screen TVs, Patriots games. We put the noise on for that. Everything else is just background music.
[Zac Bears]: Indoors. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we were, we were thinking about, I don't think we're going to do that. Uh, just that the space too valuable as is.
[Zac Bears]: Up against that, yeah, the green wall all the way to the left underneath the TV. I can do a better job of outlining it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we're not doing any. No, no.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'll see you on the next one.
[Zac Bears]: 17 2024 Medford City Council, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 24469 offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City Council celebrate the importance of the Chevalier Theatre and commend the friends of Chevalier and Dream Act Gym for their hard work in securing, ensuring the success of the theatre, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or statements from members of the Council? Seeing none, I will recognize Mr. Krause. Ken, how are you? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ken. Any further questions or comments by members of the council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I mean, from what I've read, negative, the motion passes. Councilor Tseng offered a resolution under suspension. Is there a motion to suspend the rules? On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Calderon to suspend the rules to take paper 24471, offered under suspension by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 24471.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. President Fierce? Yes. I have a negative. The motion passes. 24471 offered under suspension by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City of Medford stands in unconditional support of our Haitian brothers and sisters and of all immigrants who are part of this community wherever they may come from. We are grateful for the skills, energy, and vibrancy they bring to Medford at this time when hateful and divisive rhetoric is being promulgated by highly visible people on the national level we believe that it is important to restate our commitment to all residents in our city, all residents of our city. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: As a friendly amendment, no need for a roll call. Great. All right. Any further discussion by members of the Council? We'll go to the podium for public participation. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? I will go to Zoom, Eileen Lerner, and then we'll come back to the podium. Eileen, I've pressed the ask to unmute button. If you can accept my invitation to unmute. I've requested that you unmute, Eileen. You're going to have to press a button. It should show up as a pop-up. All right, Eileen, we'll come back to you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. At the podium, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would also note that the city annually hosts a Haitian Flag Day ceremony, and I remember even in my time at Medford High School that that was a day of celebration in our schools. And obviously there's always more that we can do, but I just wanted to note that that is a regular city event every year. Any further comment by members of the council or the public on this matter? Seeing none, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve as amended, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes. Records of the meeting of September 10th, 2024 passed to Councilor Lazzaro. How did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the record, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And the affirmative then the negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, September 11th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, 0 in the negative. The motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-468 offered by Councilor Tseng be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the governance committee discuss updates to the city charter, including creating a timeline for action and reviewing proposals of the charter study committee once finalized. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: So I motion to move this to, um, the governance committee motion of Councilor Tseng to refer this to the governance committee, seconded by councilor Callahan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: legal notice, sorry, 24439, legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office continued notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and by Zoom on Tuesday, September 10th, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, September 6th, 2024 On a petition for a special permit for hours filed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155. The petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in a commercial C1 zoning district at 4091 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q1511. The petition seeks a special permit for hours, Monday through Sunday, and actually, there's an amendment, so I'm going to read the revised request now. Panda Express, revised request, we request an extended hour special permit to operate until 12 a.m., Monday through Thursday, and 1 a.m. on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. This is in line with extended hour special permits recently granted to Great American Beer Hall, Snappy Patty's, and Pinky's Pizza. We believe the disruption to the neighborhood from these extended hours will be minimal, because we are mostly surrounded by businesses and do not have a drive-through, but a set of ample parking for visitors and food delivery drivers to park and come inside. We look forward to working with the council to develop a plan that works for the neighborhood. The petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the City Clerk, Room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford MA, call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations aids. City of Medford is an EEOA 504 employer by order of the City Council, signed Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. I'm going to reopen the public hearing, or as was continued from the last meeting, public hearing is reopened. And if the petitioner would like to speak about their revised request.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll open it up to questions from the council. You can go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions or comments by members of the Council? One second. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: That was a, that was a complicated vote. There were multiple special permits. Some passed, some didn't. Okay. Some we weren't sure on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: But you just want to note it's a Monday through Thursday and midnight, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 1 a.m. And there was a vote on raising canes last year. It was a there was not five votes, which is the sufficiency needed to pass. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I can think of some times I've left this room around 2 a.m. and would like some orange chicken, but that's just me. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion. Actually, I need to... We'll take that, but first we need to hear from everyone, close out the public hearing, then we can take the motion. Any other comments from members of the council? Seeing none, I'll go back to the petitioner. Sorry, it took a little longer to get back to you, but the floor is yours. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: That would be great. All right, if nothing else, I'm gonna just wanna open it up to members of the public, either in the chamber or on Zoom, if they have a comment during this public hearing, either for, against, or otherwise. Is there anyone who has a public comment on the extension of hours of Panda Express, Monday through Thursday to midnight, and Friday, Saturday, Sunday to 1 a.m.? ? I have one person on Zoom, Douglas H. Post. I will request that you unmute. Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Any further comment on this matter? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. We had a motion from Vice President Collins to approve pending public comment and with a 30, 60, 90 day review. Do we also want to add in that the petitioner noted hosting a community day? I think that's a great thing. So with that further amendment, as seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, affirmative or negative, the motion passes. Thank you very much and good luck. Motions, orders and resolutions 24470 offered by Councilor Tseng be resolved with the committee on public health and community safety. Discuss the possibility of installing sanitary facilities in public spaces, including in our parks. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments, members of the council? Councilor Callahan, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I tried this about three years ago. Good luck. Any further comment from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Gaston. Any further comment by members of the council? Seeing none. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve and refer this to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 24-467 offered by mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation requests. September 12 2024 regarding Capital Stabilization Fund appropriation request dear President Bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following two appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund Spring Street at Central Avenue traffic signal safety improvement project any amount of $283,535 and matching funds for the MAS, Department of Environmental Protection, VW and refuse truck electric grant program to purchase one electric refuse truck in the amount of $178,000. As your honorable body knows, the capital stabilization fund presently has a balance of $5 million. Further, any appropriation from stabilization account requires a two thirds majority vote of the city council. Director of Traffic and Transportation, Todd Blake, will be present to answer any questions on the Traffic Safety Improvement Project, and CPA Manager, Teresa DuPont, will be available to present any and We'll be present to answer any questions on the electric refuse truck project. Finally, I respectfully request that both, or at least the traffic signal safety project, that your Honorable Body move forward tonight as the city is under some tight timelines for award, and Director Blake will elaborate on those at or before the meeting. And we did receive, I'm sorry, thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. We did receive a communication from Director Blake. He's also here, but I'll read the communication. I'm providing the following additional information in anticipation of some possible questions regarding this request. The city's director of traffic and transportation, as well as the city engineer and former city engineer, current DPW commissioner, Prioritize this project, that is the Central Ave Spring Street traffic signal. Prioritize this project when developing and prioritizing the city's capital project list slash needs. The existing traffic signal is substandard, not meeting national and state guidelines for traffic signals. Specifically, it lacks the minimum number of signal heads per approach to only having one per approach. The traffic signal also lacks pedestrian actuation and indications, walk slash don't walk indications, et cetera. This project is necessary to add these important safety features as well as to provide accessible ramps so the accommodations are available to all persons of all abilities. The city hired a consultant to design the project, which includes an overhead mast arm for better visibility and to achieve the two signals per approach standard. The city secured allocated funding using CityARPA to design and construct the project. The amount sought through that program accounted for paying the consultant as well as paying for the construction of the project based on the construction cost estimate produced by that design. During the bidding process, the city received three qualified bids. However, unfortunately, all three bids are higher than the estimated construction costs, substantially higher. Therefore, the project requires additional funding to be able to award a contract and proceed with construction. The city project is seeking $283,535 from the capital stabilization fund. For context, the total construction cost is $749,535 based on the low bid plus estimated police details. The construction estimate had been $466,135. The design fees are $141,900. We do not anticipate receiving lower bids if rebidding the project, and there do not appear to be cost savings from value engineering. It is already minimum work required. There are multiple time constraints involved. Since it is ARPA funded, the funds need to be allocated by the end of the calendar year. Also, the contract must be awarded within 45 days of the bid opening. Because of these time constraints, we also not only ask for the funds, but we request approval be given tonight. without continuing to subsequent meetings, this will help ensure the award within the proper time constraint. If we do not move forward or miss our window of opportunity to construct this project, safety will remain compromised at this location, possibly leading to incidents and or claims that could be avoided. Thank you for your time and consideration on this important matter. Sincerely, Todd Blake, Director of Traffic and Transportation. So that's the letter. Any comments, questions, thoughts by members of the council or questions for Director Blake or Manager DuPont? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: That was an error. So that's an error in the letter for the mayor. It's an appropriation request. So, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kaya and Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I want to note that the mayor has reached out to schedule a committee of the whole in October to discuss stabilization fund requests. Now that ARPA funding is expiring, we're coming back to why free cash exists and exists for these one-time expenditures. So the mayor, I'm working with the mayor to schedule a committee of the whole on an October Wednesday to discuss for the capital stabilization fund. And then we have the needs for departments from the stabilization funds, I think, mainly starting with the capital stabilization fund. These two items were urgent, and that's why they're before us tonight, and the mayor communicated that to me, in addition to this letter as well, in the note that most of the other stuff will be coming to us through a committee process for review And I just think Spring Street and Central Ave, that's a rough intersection if anyone's ever been walking through it or driving through it or biking through it. And hopefully between this project and the speed humps, we'll see some safety improvements there. Any further questions or discussion by members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the Council? I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: seconded by councilor Callahan. I just want to note two things. Free cash to the balance is no longer 34 million. There were at least $11 million in appropriations on June 25th to these stabilization funds. And the request before us tonight are appropriations from the capital stabilization fund, which is for capital purposes. So that's what these funds can be used for at this point. On the motion to sever the two papers by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Finally, if there were two in the negative, the motion passes. I just want to note now that this is severed, change my vote to yes, because I might need the Councilor to take this. There's matching funds for a grant here. So I'd like to hear from Director DuPont about what a delay would mean. Sorry, manager. No, no, I love it. I have literally no authority to do that. It's all right.
[Zac Bears]: What would a delay mean?
[Zac Bears]: So we need it in eight months and we have eight months of work to do to get this done. I mean, it might not be eight months, but maybe close to six. Right. Okay. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Collins to reconsider the vote on the motion to sever, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Just to clarify, in the motion to reconsider, a yes vote would mean that we will then take another vote. So if you want to consider this question of severing again, you will vote yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You're voting separately, but also motions can be made on them separately.
[Zac Bears]: You have a question, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, this is a vote on do we want to reconsider severing? Because Councilor Collins was in the majority on the vote to sever, Councilor Collins can make a motion to reconsider that vote. If we vote yes to reconsider, we would then take another vote on the motion to sever or have further discussion on the motion to sever. Essentially, it brings us back to discussion on the motion to sever. Thank you. On the motion to reconsider by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion to reconsider passes. On the motion to sever by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to sever. I know we're using up those vote slips.
[Zac Bears]: No.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Five in the negative, two in the affirmative, the motion to sever fails. Any further discussion on the paper before us? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the appropriation request, seconded by Councilor Leming, is appropriation from the Capital Stabilization Fund. Any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. We will go to the podium. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Director DuPont on this in a second. It sounded like she said, Manager DuPont, I keep promoting you. But it sounded like you said sourcing would take 60 to 90 days. That includes a procurement process, if I'm correct. Part of the chapter, I can't remember the chapter, but the procurement law is 30B. The chapter procurement laws is that you have to have a defined source of the funds before you can go out to procurement. So I think that's what the issue is here that they have to have the funds approved, then go to procurement to get the vehicle. And they're just you're matching the grant amount that was authorized by DEP. All right. I think that's the answer there.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The bidding is after the funding is authorized, and if the bid comes in lower than the authorized funding, then I believe that money would revert back to the source of funding. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public or members of the council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming to approve, Ms. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We'll go to public participation. Public participation is open. If you can raise your hand on Zoom or go to the podium, I do have two letters to read, but I will read those after public participation by people who are either in the room or on Zoom. Any public participation by anyone in the chamber or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom or speak up in the chamber. Seeing none, I have two letters to read. These were sent to me by constituents, sent to the president and requested to be read at the council meeting. These are not reflective of, these are not statements by me. I am reading letters from the public for public participation. Dear councilors, I have witnessed the appalling personal attacks against our progressive city councils by people incorrectly calling themselves All Medford. They have screamed, interrupted, kept people from speaking, and ignored honest answers to their concerns. Meetings have dragged on to 1 a.m. Our new city councilors are sincere, thoughtful people trying to make Medford a better place for all, with more affordable housing, an end to discrimination, and enough funding to support our underfunded public schools. One needn't agree with them on everything, but disrespectful conduct keeps our city from moving forward. I have lived in Medford for 43 years, and sadly will be departing soon for senior housing. I can honestly attest that Medford is a better place now, with better schools, more diversity, a brand new police station, interesting new restaurants, and potentially a new fire station than it was when I first came here. The effort to overturn the regressive Proposition 2.5, which has resulted in underfunding our schools and roads, is a positive thing. Of course, in the end, it will be put to the voters. I do understand that this may pose a small hardship for low-income homeowners, but most cities and towns have already passed overrides. People can, of course, vote against it, but they should not attack those who, in good faith, want to improve our city with essential funding by putting it on the ballot or misrepresent their views, as was done in heated discussions of the real estate transfer fee. Thank you. Susan Gerard, Medford, Massachusetts. That's the first letter, and then I have another letter. Dear Medford City Council President Zach Bares, I request you read this letter at the next City Council meeting. This past year, I've attended many City Council meetings, mostly on Zoom, a few in City Hall chambers, largely because of closed captioning, which allows me to hear more of what people in the chambers are saying. The deficient sound system in City Hall, I understand, is going to be renovated, and that will be good for everyone. A second reason I have often preferred not to be physically present in the City Council Chambers is because of an unruly mob of residents who come to meetings to register their displeasure on hot-button issues like the budget, real estate transfer fee, or renaming of the Columbus School. These meetings have been perforated by the group ironically now known as All Medford, the small group of residents regularly indulging, screaming, shouting, and insulting our Revolution Medford-endorsed City Councilors, After one particularly contentious meeting I attended in City Hall, councillors were individually singled out for repeated personal attacks and subjected to blanket attacks on all of them because they belonged to our revolution, Medford. I was so disturbed by the vitriol, the lies, the hatred, and the unwillingness to even listen to what Councilors had to say. I'm so sorry that you, Zach, and the other OR-endorsed Councilors have been subjected to this abuse. I want to assure you that a majority of residents who voted for you and all our Revolution Medford candidates still support the work you've been doing or attempting to do in Medford. Know that we are still here. All Medford is not all Medford. You were elected on the basis of the People's Platform, and we who voted for you still want to work on that agenda. the city budget we need to support the schools and city services, the creation of an equitable and welcoming city government, desperately needed affordable housing, community safety, and a climate-resilient community. As we explore solutions to these and other issues, I support you, as do the many who voted for our Revolution Medford candidates. Please do not allow the not-all Medford to derail or curtail any of your intentions, goals, or efforts. We who support you are many. There are a small group of disgruntled people whose leadership and control has been rejected by the voters. voters. Sincerely, Eileen Lerner, Knight-Adams Circle, Medford, Massachusetts. Those are the letters. Is there anyone else who has any public comment at this time? Seeing none, is there anything else that anyone wants to look at on the agenda? We're at unfinished business, seeing no motions. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It looks like he's dropped off.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. I need everyone to stick around.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead. Thank you, vice president Collins. I just think, um, in this case, we should, I think, try to keep it simple. We're not, uh, Seattle, you know, we're not a city of that scale. And I just think we should reflect the capacity of our staff and also the, you know, sometimes we're not working with, giant, I don't think we, I don't even want to implement a policy that is too much for some of the smaller folks who might want to be developing something here. So, um, I think we should err on the size of user friendliness while also maintaining, uh, green priorities, but I could see how we could go down a rabbit hole pretty quick. Something that I've talked about is, you know, instead of having it be a score between zero and one, let's do between zero and a hundred. I think people really understand that scale. All you have to do is multiply everything by 100 anyway, so it doesn't really change the substance of it, but just trying to make it a little more comprehensible to the average person, I think, is something we should consider here as well. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I just think that that was something I wanted to bring up too. I think how this interfaces with the stormwater work and also the potential tree ordinance, you know, those are gonna be two questions. I think there was a discussion where some of the green scores leave the stormwater element out of it, since stormwater regulations are handling that separately. And that might be the road we want to go down here.
[Zac Bears]: Just given what we've discussed, I think site plan review makes a lot of sense, and I think we should move in that direction as a threshold.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think this is a great start. I think there's, I kind of like the Portland model versus another point space model. Although if we did a point space model maybe for this and for TDM and for green score and we could use the same scale for all of them that might be a way to also use a point space model and have the simplicity. I just think we don't want to overload this I think, you know, to me. . I think we are talking about you know, district squares and corridors only at this point. So, I mean, I'd be open to thinking about it in other ways. Maybe the overlays and the infill are ways to go into the neighborhoods and not have this incentive zoning model be the same application. but to me, right, if we're talking Salem street, the quarter we've been discussing, you know, we're talking about four by right. And then the incentive would only go up to six with a step back. So, you know, really all you could say is if you do a certain amount of affordable housing, you get two, or maybe if you do additional ground for commercial and investment in improving the transportation infrastructure, you get one story, something like that. Um, I think, uh, mystic ab is a little more open. Um, I think we're talking like maybe a, by right eight up to 12 or 14. So there's a little bit more room there, but I still think you could get there pretty simply if you left your incentive categories relatively simple, and then also did it by floor. And then we could treat like green score and TDM as separate things since most of these are, we're talking all of these, everything I've just talked about would trigger site plan review. So that might be the way to kind of, to be able to. Avoid this Byzantine bureaucracy and still do, uh, all three of these things at once.
[Zac Bears]: I just, I want to throw out the idea too. I think that the, um, let's say that these are kind of, and I like what Paula just said about in the neighborhood, like we have the square and corridor districts, then we're going to have the neighborhood districts. I think something like what was just mentioned, like in the neighborhood districts would make sense for, It's more about the units and the affordable housing. And it's a little bit simpler. Like if it's three, maybe you could get four. If the fourth is affordable. I mean, that's probably not going to work. We saw in Somerville, they tried to do, you could do triple-decker, but one of them has to be affordable. Nobody built anything. So they went citywide triple-decker. So I think at that scale, but the four to eight with two affordable or one affordable, you know, you're still talking about a 12, 12% affordable, even if one of those units is affordable deed restricted, which is, I think higher than we're requesting right now in a 10-unit building, if I'm remembering the inclusionary right. So something like that might work. I just think another thing that would be helpful, um, let's say we went with ground floor commercial, uh, investments in improving transit infrastructure and affordable housing as three things for the incentive zoning. Um, and then we can have green score and TDM also as out there as well. I think it would be useful for like the community development board to make an recommendation on a regular basis about, um, minimum thresholds, like if we were to do ground floor commercial, would it be 20% of the ground floor, a certain amount of square footage relative to the size of the building? Affordable housing as well, I think is a little simpler. Transportation funding just to factor in. exactly that situation that I was just mentioning out of Somerville where they said, Oh, we'll do triple deckers everywhere, but one has to be affordable. It wasn't an effective policy because it didn't build any new housing units. Um, so I think we want to make sure if we were to say a hundred percent of the first, if you get extra floor, it's 15 foot step back. So it's only 60% of the square foot of the first floor and the whole first floor has to be commercial. that's not going to get us anything. We're actually reducing, you know, it's a countervailing force. So I think some element of the zoning where the CD board is, who's reviewing these in site plan review is kind of making a recommendation every so often based on their experience as to what these thresholds should be for different incentives, I think would be helpful too. And some of that's from William's email. And the other part of it, that I think is harder is adjusting to market conditions. I, you know, I have a harder time saying, well, if the interest rate's 7%, then we should only ask for half as much affordable housing or half, you know, that's, I think, a much harder argument to make. But I think at least getting it right and getting those recommendations based on the CD board's experience and site plan review of how these incentives are playing out will be really useful.
[Zac Bears]: One, actually, just we should make sure that none of this conflicts with the changes we made about the definition of family and people living in a household. We removed a lot of language around blood relations and things that courts have said we can't actually legislate. And we don't want to add anything back, obviously. Kind of what Councilor Callahan was saying, similar.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, September 10th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24462 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Resolution to recognize and celebrate National Recovery Month. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate September as National Recovery Month. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comment by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-465 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of longtime Medford resident, volunteer, and all around amazing person, Frank Zizzo, on his recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments? I'd just like to turn to Vice President Collins. I just want to send my condolences as well. I went to school with Tyler. I know it's a hard time. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion to take the paper under suspension?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to take the paper under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Opposed, motion passes. 24-466 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council observe a moment of silence in recognition of the lives lost on September 11th, 2001. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor Scarpelli to approve and have a moment of silence seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I'll oppose motion passes a moment of silence. Thank you. Records, the records of the meeting of August 13th, 2024 were passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the records by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24033, offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, August 14th, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Other motion approved by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23449 offered by Councilor Lazzaro. Sorry about that. Public Health and Community Safety meeting August 13th, 2024 report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the committee report, seconded by. Seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24461, resolution to meet and discuss updates to the Road and Control Ordinance. Be it resolved that the Committee on Public Health and Community Safety meet with the Health Director to consider updates to the Road and Control Ordinance, Chapter 6, Article 4. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the mention of Vice President Collins to move this paper to, refer this paper to public health and community safety, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper two, four, four, six, three and public participation out of order. Seconded by seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. Do you want to speak before I read the paper? Sure. 24463, a resolution to reappoint City Clerk Adam L. Hurtubise, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we reappoint City Clerk Adam L. Hurtubise to a new three-year term, be it further resolved that this term shall expire on September 10, 2027.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Welcome, head clerk Annie Kelly. Thanks. Any discussion on the paper or any motions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having affirmative and negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Head Clerk Annie Kelly. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Next, we'll go to public participation. First, we have a petition paper from Cindy Watson. I will read it while we welcome Cindy to the stage. To the Honorable City Council of Councilors, the undersigned respectfully pray for support from the City Councilors in recognizing the importance of the Chevalier Theatre. The Chevalier is the economic engine for the City of Medford. Cindy Watson, 65 Valley Street, 4D, Medford, MA. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cindy. I'll go to Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what you're saying, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Cindy, thank you so much for coming down. I just want to thank you and the friends for all the work that you do. You know, whenever we see a CPA application or community fund or whatever it might be, I know we want to support the Chevalier as much as we can. And supporting the friends is a key part of that as well. and the organ society and all the other folks who have done so much for the for the building, you know, I'm on the Brooks estate board. So I kind of understand firsthand a little bit what it feels like sometimes when you're trying to raise money for the city owned property, and then the city is not pitching in services and resources that are needed. You know, I am an advocate of trying to put more of the city's funds into supporting Chevalier directly, I know that there's a very very small amount of money that's going to support Chevalier right now from the city budget. And I think that's really important. So thank you for coming down. And I do want to just ask, not just for us, but to share with anyone who may be watching, what's the best way that folks can join as a member? Is there a website to go to? And what's the best way to sign up for the annual meeting?
[Zac Bears]: I can't promise everybody, but sure, some of us will attend. But if the public wants to attend, how can they find out more and sign up?
[Zac Bears]: Approximately. And is it friends, what's the URL? friendsofthechevalier.com?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much, Cindy.
[Zac Bears]: All right, this was public participation. Do we have any other public participation at this time? please come forward. This is the public participation section of the meeting. If you have any comment you'd like to make not related to a paper on the agenda. Seeing no one in the chamber, no hands on Zoom, public participation is closed. Hearings, 24439. Petition for a special permit for hours, Panda Express. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office. Continued notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA. Enviso on Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, September 6, 2024 on a petition for a special permit for hours, followed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155. The petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in a commercial C1 zoning district at 491 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q1511. The petition seeks a special permit for hours Monday through Sunday, 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall, call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aides. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the city council, signed Adam L. Hurtubise, city clerk. Councilor Scarpellilli. Thanks, Councilor Villes. Do you want me to reopen the public hearing or do you want to go?
[Zac Bears]: The public hearing is open. We'd like to hear from the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: We just get your last name for the record. Great. Um, with that, I will go to Councilors for questions.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue to a date certain next meeting. Next meeting is next Tuesday, September 17th. Perfect. Any further discussion? Vice President, Councilor Callahan, promotion.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this to the September 17th regular meeting, this public hearing seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. So we'll come back next week and talk a little more. Thank you guys. Thank you. 24457, request for amendment to previously approved grant of location. Do I have a wave of the reading? I do not want to read this entire letter from... Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?, the reading in favor of summary. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. There is a request from National Grid to the City Council. There's a petition. There's a grant location application that was previously approved, and this is a request for amendment. We've received communications from KP Law and City Engineer Wartella. The folks that want, I could read them, but, Do we have a synopsis from the engineer? Sure, great. Do we have a brief synopsis of the request?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And if I remember correctly, if I may, just that what we had requested was that if there was a certain amount of pavement that was not going to be restored, that it be the restore other pavement in lieu of restoring that pavement. I believe that was the condition so that the square footage of pavement would, that would be the same that was restored or saying no.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Okay. I welcome his hard work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Mr. President, if I can. Sure, I just wanna, go ahead, Councilor Scarpelli, then we'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro. I can also read the letter from council to the city.
[Zac Bears]: I could read the letter from Council if that would be helpful. I just wanted to get that summary out there as well. Dear Attorney Riley, thank you for your letter made 29th address to the City Engineer. The City of Medford has asked us to respond as Council. We have consulted with City Engineer, Director of Public Works and the Mayor in making this response. then location as you know this matter concerns the proper interpretation of that certain grant of location 23445 issued by the city council on November 14 2023 approving national bridge petition to construct a line of electric underground electric conduits in main street at the location specified The installation requires cutting and excavating a trench in the Main Street pavement for a length of approximately 370 feet. Main Street in this location was fully reconstructed less than five years ago and contains a median strip separating opposing lanes. This median strip is laid on top of the pavement bed, extending as a unbroken hall from the curb on one side of the roadway to the curb on the far side. As a condition of the grant of location, the City Council required National Grid to provide repaving of another roadway. equal to the work associated with curb-to-curb roadway restoration within the limits of the Main Street project. Curb-to-curb is an industry standard term referring to the full width of the roadway, and the restoration condition must be interpreted as such. The Council is familiar with the roadway in question, and if the Council's intent was to limit restoration limits to curb-to-median curb, it could have so specified. Please further note that Main Street is not a quote divided road. That term is used specifically in the industry for highways and state routes with a large median frequently unpaved and northbound southbound designations. Main Street is not designated that way. Restoration standard, the city readily acknowledges the authority of the Commonwealth to regulate the placement of utility lines in the city streets and with the application order DTE 98-22. entitled standards to be employed by public utility operators when restoring any of the streets, lanes, and highways and municipalities as an extension of that authority. In particular, section nine of the order sets forth the standards for pavement restoration following disturbance by utility. Section 9.1 provides that quote, all pavement disturbed by the work, unquote, shall be replaced with quote, homogeneous and in-kind pavement to the original strength and condition. Quote, homogeneous is defined as of uniform structure or composition throughout. Sections 9.2 through 9.15, 9.15 set forth particular standards relative to pavement restoration without regard to the age of the roadway. Section 9.16, however, provides that the municipality quote, shall have a jurisdiction to determine the pavement repair method to be utilized on all pavements which have been installed for less than five years. Pursuant to the grant location, the City of Medford has determined that the work proposed in Main Street, a street reconstructed within the past five years, requires curb-to-curb restoration within the project limits or its equivalent. As set forth in Section 9.16, quote, method is simply the procedure for accomplishing the task, and a curb-to-curb restoration is the method the City has reasonably selected. pursuant to section 9.16 of the order to restore Main Street to its original strength and condition, the structural integrity and life of a paved street as a whole is compromised by partial exclamations and patches, and such compromises can be avoided by curb-to-curb reconstruction to maintain the structural integrity of the street. The case, Colonial Gloss versus Town of Wilmington, cited by National Register for its interpretation of pavement with restoration requirements does not concern the disturbance of city streets reconstructed within the past five years, and thus does not apply to this matter. The timing of restoration work, the terms and conditions for work in public streets allowed by a grant of location are determined by the appropriate permanent authority as designated by section 74-141 of the city ordinances. In this case, the permitting authority for the Main Street project as approved and conditioned by the city council is the engineering division of the Department of Public Works. As you are aware, National Grid attempted to bypass the permitting process by contacting the DPW commissioner directly after meeting with the city engineer. Requiring the restoration work prior to commencing the Main Street project is essential to the city to ensure that the required work is satisfactorily completed. National Grid has repeatedly not completed promised work, one still being from 2019, and therefore the permit authority engineering is conditioning the permit for the Main Street project accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, very truly yours, Jonathan D. Eichmann, attorney at KP Law. So it sounds like fundamentally the dispute is over the roadbed of Main Street and the city engineer and our council have made it clear that the median on Main Street is above the foundation of the roadbed and therefore curb to curb does not mean curb to median curb, but one curb to the other side because the roadbed is continuous under the median. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, Vice President Collins and Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a minute. We'll go to attorney, we'll go to Councilor Callahan. You can tell it's been a month since I've done this. Councilor Callahan and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: A motion to table is undebatable. Is it about the motion itself? Yeah. And technically we can't actually table, it's not gonna be a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain, which is debatable. It's not a public hearing. It's an amendment to grant allocation. Nevermind, so we can table it. What's your question?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, there's a delay to the work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I do have questions myself and haven't had the chance to ask them. I just think since the rate payers were brought up, do you know what the annual profit was of the Massachusetts Electric Company last year?
[Zac Bears]: It was $104 million. The year before that it was 120, year before that 122. Your parent company in the UK? Annual profits, 7.97 billion. So I think the assertion of returning this to the rate payers is indicative of the failure of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to structure our public utility system in a way that is beneficial to the public, and not in a way that pads the profits of very large corporations, which aren't even headquartered in this country, nevermind the state. Is your motion to table? All right. On the motion to table of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Sure, we have a letter from legal.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. On the motion to table and request legal representation by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, yes. And by the way, when I said $7.97 billion, it's actually 7.97 billion pounds. My bad. Mr. Herbies, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No. 4 in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. The motion is tabled. 6-4, petition for a common victor's license and is on market. Give me one moment here. Business, Muammar Barakteli, Nazar Market, 325 Rivers Edge Drive, Medford, and owner at 103 Beach Street, apartment one, Belmont. On fire, we have business certificate 2024, number 20. The petition has been received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasure collector received, building department received, fire department received, police department, traffic impact received, and health department received. Do we have a representative of Nazar Market here to speak to their petition? Anyone here for Nazar Market to represent on the petition? Either in person or on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Anyone for Nazar Market, common victuals license? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to the table by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? A motion passes. 24047, resolution to request linkage fee updates in the city of Medford. an act updating the linkage exaction program in the city of Medford. This is a request by Councilor Leming pursuant to previous motions passed on updating the linkage fee. We have here two honorable representatives, Christine Barber, Paul Donato, and Sean Garberly, and our honorable Senator Patricia Jalen attached as a home rule petition to update the 1989 act. that established Medford's linkage program. Since 1989, this act has provided a critical source of funds for our police, our parks, our roads and traffic, and our water and sewers. The current act requires a new study every three years to update the exact amount of linkage fees, but in practice, since its institution in 1990, Medford has never performed such a study. Thus, the exact linkage amounts have not been updated since 34 years ago and have been drastically undervalued by the effects of inflation. As the city works to update the linkage fees and add a new source of revenue for affordable housing, We find that the original requirement for review every three years was likely to cost prohibitive. We therefore request two updates to the Act. The first extends the period of review from three years to 10 years. This mandates a more reasonable period in between studies. The second allows for automatic updates to linkage fees in between studies based on an inflation index. This would prevent fees from being undervalued over time from inflation and uses the same language that is as that established for the City of Watertown in 2022 Act of the Legislature, Chapter 302 of the Acts of 2022. We've enclosed the proposed language of the Act. Sincerely, Councilor Leming. An act updating the linkage exaction program in the City of Medford, Chapter 488 of the Acts of 1989, an act establishing a linkage exaction program in the City of Medford is hereby updated as follows. Section 2, Part 5 shall now read, the level of any exaction shall be reviewed at least every 10 years and reset as required based on the recommendation of the Office of Community Development and the Mayor of said City. In between reviews, updates to any exaction may be adjusted over time or retroactively based on changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers compiled by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to approve the homework petition and send it to the mayor, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any questions or discussion? Councilor Kalia.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion? I can. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And the authorizing legislation also enabled an affordable housing, but that was never established.
[Zac Bears]: And I would just note that this change would just provide the authority to the city to update the linkage fees and to have an escalator for inflation costs. The city still needs to conduct a nexus study to actually update the rates. But I think we can all agree that what we assessed as the impact of police and fire roads or parks or streets and roads 34 years ago isn't what it's costing the city today.
[Zac Bears]: It also addresses the Supreme Court decision around, I believe, the rationale for the nexus studies, that if you're assessing impact fees, it has to be based on a rational basis test for having a study. And that's part of this as well. That's a recent court case. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second the motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, any further discussion? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: And just from the chair, just want to thank Vice President Collins as well between this and the work on the solid waste task force and our solid waste ordinances and the release of the solid waste plan and now focused on again now for our second pass at rodent control after the first pass at rodent control, which is obviously much needed with the wildlife feeding and overgrowth and amendments to the rodent control ordinance. really from this council and in partnership with the city administration worked hard to put together a comprehensive approach to trying to keep this rodent problem out of our community and try to improve our waste practices and I think you've been essential to that and I really want to thank you for that. Obviously, we have more work to do, and we're doing that with an incredibly limited set of resources and funds, which is really difficult, but trying to maximize what we can do given the limited staffing and limited funding is really impressive. So thank you very much. Any further discussion? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the first reading, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Ms. Schwerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes. So we'll see that for third reading in a few weeks. 24458 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, established an EV charging repawing fund. dear president bears and members of the city council I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the following amendment to chapter 2 article 5 division 4 of the city's ordinance by adopting the following change the table in section 2-964 authorizing revolving funds shall be amended to include an electric vehicle charging revolving fund as per the enclosed table and close the letter from the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, that outlines this request, as well as a memorandum that provides supporting documentation. Finally, I'm enclosing a memorandum by Finance Director Auditor, Bob Dickinson, that provides the necessary certification pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 44, Section 53E and a half for establishing a revolving fund in the middle of a fiscal year. Climate Staff Planner, Brenda Pike, will be available to speak to this request and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Brenda, do you have a presentation or just wanna?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I can see here from the charts provided that the kilowatt hours have gone up a lot and there's a projection for this year of doubling again. And given that the city right now is not charging at all, right, it's a It's $0.25 right now and this would take us up to $0.35. All right, I will go to Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve for first reading by Vice President Cohn, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Is there a public participation? I see Mr. Fiore. Would you like to speak on this paper? Sorry, my apologies. I didn't see you. We were just voting. The rule doesn't speak to that either way. Generally, I look for a hand on Zoom or someone standing here at the podium or waiting for the podium. Thanks. Any further discussion on the EV charging station? Seeing none, on the motion, Vice President Collins to approve the first reading. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative and negative. The motion passes. Thank you. And thank you, Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Brenda. All right, 24-460 offered, submitted by Mayor Brian O'Connor, refunding loan order request. We have a prematurely thank you, Bob. Sorry about that. We have here, dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following loan order. City of Medford loan order water bonds, be it ordered that in order to reduce interest costs, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor is authorized to provide for the sale and issuance of refunding bonds pursuant to chapter 44, section 21A of the general laws or pursuant to any other enabling authority at one time or from time to time to refund any or all portions of the city's general obligation bonds outstanding as of the date of adoption of this order, and that the proceeds of the refunding bonds issued pursuant to this order shall be used to pay the principal redemption premium and interest on the bonds of the city to be refunded, and cost of issuance of the refunding bonds, and that the treasurer is authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary or desirable to carry out this transaction, including one or more refunding trust agreements with a bank or trust company, and further order that the treasurer is authorized to file an application with the appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth to qualify under Chapter 44A of the general laws, any and all bonds of the city authorized to be borrowed pursuant to this loan order, and to provide such information and execute such documents as such officials of the Commonwealth may require in connection therewith, Finance Director Auditor Bob Dickinson will be prepared, present to answer questions on this matter. We respectfully submit it to the Mayor. We also have in accordance with the provisions of Medford City Council Rule 30 from KP Law, we have examined the above captioned loan order as to its legality and respectfully transmit this letter of notification of our findings. In opinion, the loan order in which an authorization is sought to refund any or all portion of the city's outstanding general obligation bonds as of the date of the loan order including the payment of the principal redemption premium and interest on the bonds of the city to be refunded and the cost of issuance of refunding bonds is in proper form and further such refunding bonds are authorized pursuant to section 21a of chapter 44 of the general laws as amended the loan order properly grants the treasurer with the approval of the mayor the authority to issue such refunding bonds of the city and duly authorizes the city to qualify said refunding bonds pursuant to chapter 44a of the general laws as amended It is also understood the city's bond council prepared and reviewed the loan order. Thank you very much. And please let us know if you have any questions. So we have here, I think I just, in a very long winded way, we have a paper here that the city would like to reduce interest counts by refunding and potentially reissuing bonds and that you require this loan order to do so.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion for approval, do you have a discussion question? Sorry, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the microphone is on.
[Zac Bears]: It's working. Hi. Thanks, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna get them replaced soon, but you might wanna, yeah. Shane's about to yell at you for touching the thing too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you for recognizing that.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and so yeah, this would apply to all bonds out of any funds?
[Zac Bears]: So, um, is, is this, I guess my question is more, does this provide the city, the authority and perpetuity to conduct this process or only for these bonds? Um, this is for any bonds when we, and we just need to make sure we have it on file somewhere that we actually adopted this and can't find it if we did it before.
[Zac Bears]: But you wouldn't need to come back to us.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion. Does this require multiple readings? I don't think it's an amendment to the ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think so. No. On a motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli to approve, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator Ferman, then I give the motion passes. I did miss Mr. Fury. Would someone call public participation?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to open up public participation, seconded by Vice President Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Yes, I'm sorry about that. If you want to speak to the items that I missed you on prior, the floor is yours and I'll give you six minutes since I missed you twice.
[Zac Bears]: pause there for a second. I saw Councilor Collins. I'm saving your time. Councilor Collins, have you had a response?
[Zac Bears]: linkage fee right so one related to the affordable housing trust in addition to the four other ones this tonight no this tonight was just that the city has the authority to update i think there is an intent to add a fifth bucket as authorized by the legislation but that would have to happen through an ordinance separate from this
[Zac Bears]: I'm a fan of the, uh, IPD as a price deflator. So, you know, if we want to get into that, I will say this as a home rule petition, if, um, if the legislature were to be so kind as to deign to offer this council the authority to consider other price deflators, they could amend the Home Rule petition that we submitted, Representative Donato, Senator Jalen, Barbara, Representative Garberly, if they wanted to just say, the price deflator chosen by the city council and the mayor or something like that, that would be possible. But I do appreciate Councilor Leming's approach, which is if they passed it before, maybe they'll pass it again, which is a rarity. They only passed eight laws this term, so sometimes a little tough. But yeah, I'm an IPD fan because that's about that's the price bucket for state and local government relative constant GDP. And I think that's actually what we should be using, because it's the stuff that cities buy versus what people buy, which is a little different, but we can avoid that. And it looks like everybody's bored. So on behalf of the residents, please, please stop. Motion to adjourn. Yeah, here's what he has. I have a motion of council member to adjourn seconded by Councilor Keohane. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes, the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, Alan. Hey. How are you? Bob, how are you? Nice. Good. Good. Good. Driven by recently, but- Oh, yes.
[Zac Bears]: We could use the help.
[Zac Bears]: We would be open by now. Uh, but I, I am going to ask Kyle on the call. He's part of our team to give an update. He's got a background in construction and can do a better job than I can. So. I just give an update. Sure. My name is Kyle Harnish. I'm part of the ownership team of the Great American Beer Hall, and I'm a builder developer by trade, so I have a little bit of experience in this. We've experienced some slight delays here towards the end, and basically we have met with our general contractor and have outlined the following dates for our final inspections and getting our CO. Our biggest concern here is we are just within a few days of receiving our CO, but don't want to have to wait another month to come before you guys if there's some way to work something out. I wanted to lay out those timelines for you more specifically. It starts with tomorrow. Tomorrow will be our final plumbing inspection. On Friday, we will have our final electrical inspection. On Monday, we will have our final building inspection. And on Tuesday, we will have our life safety inspection. And we expect the issuance of the full certificate of occupancy by Tuesday afternoon. And we should be able to pick it up Wednesday morning. That is, we're having preliminary tests over the next few days in preparation for those final tests to make sure that we do pass. And that includes having the fire department out as early as tomorrow just to do an initial run test. So all that being said, I understand that you guys meet, you know, once a month. So, you know, assuming that we fulfill all these conditions over the next few days and get all our final sign-offs, we are asking upon final occupancy certificate being issued next Wednesday, a full liquor license so that we can operate for the Labor Day weekend.
[Zac Bears]: I said that to Daria.
[Zac Bears]: Not yet.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's the last thing. The last thing we're waiting for, uh, so we actually got the gas turned on today. So the hot water test, um, is all happening. And then, uh, the disease coming out tomorrow from the board of health.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. I think this is great. I really like the north end of the corridor. I think that's restoring the traditional pre-highway kind of arrangement of a walkable neighborhood that used to be a mostly residential commercial extension of Medford Square on the other side of the river, when it's kind of, you know, in the auto age was taken up by repair shops and various things that, you know, aren't necessarily what we want to prioritize. So I'm really interested to see that. My only really question, I guess I have two questions. One with the curb setbacks is the idea that the private owners would be accepting of the curb setbacks because they would be able to build higher. Is that essentially the idea there? Because I think it is, Sounded like you're talking about maybe 10 feet of going back 10 feet into the private lots and that sounds you know, I mean, I can just think. maybe a private owner would say, I don't want to do that. And I do, I guess I just wonder what like the application of that looks like. If we have some lots that want to move to redevelop and they do the curb setback and then you have another lot with a non-conforming structure that's right up on the lot line, like how is that going to work? That's my first question. And then I have a second comment.
[Zac Bears]: And I totally get the use case of it. I think it's great. I guess I'm saying in practice, have we seen where this has been implemented in other places that when development happens, the property owners seem to say this makes a lot of sense and we want to go back from the curb that much. And then, you know, do we see where, you know, different lots get developed at different times that there's kind of a, disjointedness at least for some amount of time until the buildings reflect the updated zoning where you have some of the corridor doesn't have that curb setback. I'm just wondering in your studies what you've seen with that.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think I don't think you need to go deep diving into it. I was just kind of wondering what you'd seen in practice and it sounds like. You kind of set these standards, and over time, the development pattern happens along those lines. And that makes sense to me. I do think that southeast of Hancock Street, it's worth looking at, potentially. I mean, the street's just too wide. Mystic Ave, it shouldn't be as wide as it is. 95% of the time it's empty and it's just dangerous to cross. So that was kind of one thing I was thinking is And I don't know where MassDOT would land on this either I think that's a really tough piece of the puzzle since they control the street southeast of Hancock, but You know, you could go in a little bit. I think there my other comment is that I do think the commercial zone, the red zone on the northeast side, the east side of Mystic Ave. I don't know if it makes sense to treat that. This is the red kind of south of Mystic Valley Parkway. I think in a lot of senses the Hicks Avenue element of this is kind of baked in and that's going to end up being commercial and have auto-dedicated uses, etc. I think the east side could be treated more like we're treating the east side north of the Harvard and Route 16 Mystic Valley Parkway intersection. I think, obviously, there was the life science proposal that was withdrawn by combined properties, and then the 40B that was withdrawn by combined properties. And they've been having a lot of ideas and withdrawing a lot of ideas. But I wonder if we could at least, I wonder if there's a way to say you could do either or and that mix and match wouldn't necessarily make that part of it not cohesive. I just think limiting all of those lots to the commercial only versus at least giving the opportunity for something like having the mixed use extend all the way down on the east side between Mystic Ave and the highway. That's just a thought that I have, but I'm, you know, I'd be interested to hear what other people think about that and what the planning department thinks about that as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's helpful. And I think, I guess mostly I'm thinking of the area bounded by the highway, and then northwest of Fulbright Street, northeast of Mystic, kind of, if I could, I mean, if maybe if you go to the map, it's that area. kind of right, yeah, exactly. And maybe there's a way, given the purple that we have on the west side, to kind of try to make that a more cohesive link. I definitely see most of what you're saying on the west side of the street, on the Hicks Avenue side, I completely agree. That's kind of is what it is at this point.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Thank you. That's it.
[Zac Bears]: Just one question, and it might be for PDS and for NS Associates, but given this, when do we expect that we could see the maps and the written ordinance language for adoption for, I guess, for both of these? I guess I could ask that at the end.
[Zac Bears]: I'm good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. My only thought, I really think that the big lots on the northeast side of the corridor don't have to be that big scale commercial. I could really see reintegrating and reconnecting that neighborhood and making it more walkable. I think you could have a lot of the uses, you know, you could have a Target and a gym and a liquor store under an apartment building. And just have a more, you know, right now it's just a giant parking lot, so I could really see that being And you can maintain the parking with podium parking if you really wanted to as well, or maintain some portion of it. Most of the time, most of it is empty. So that's just my one thought here. Other than that, I really think this is a thoughtful approach. And I think the kind of step backs into the neighborhoods make sense with small multi-dwelling, you know, it's a three-story height with the increased height really just fronting Salem Street. But I think that that's just my one thought. Could we try to encourage something kind of wholesale, really changing the dynamic of that section of the area, because right now it's basically just an asphalt desert most of the time.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I know this is less a zoning thing and more of a just getting all parties on the same page thing. But I wonder if I know that he wants to move out of there if we could. There could really be, I think, benefits of being a transit hub in that area too, especially with the high-speed or high-frequency bus route from Malden Centre. So just a thought.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think it is important to note, A, there's kind of two things that are at play here for me. One, once you're over two and a half, there's significantly less visual benefit of the difference between four and six. And I think we just need to factor that in. I think that's anecdotal. I think that's like a gut feeling that people are gonna feel. But if you actually look at the statistical analyses of like how people experience the world, it's not that different. I think the, and there's plenty of examples across this region of that, where you have fours and fives and sixes intermingled and it doesn't feel like when you're standing next to the six, it's so much bigger than when you're standing next to the four. I think the step backs are, less worrying than the setbacks. I think the setbacks are just really tough. I think all the setbacks and everything we've seen from all the studies that we've done are that the setbacks and the dimensional requirements in this community don't make sense with all the lot sizes in this community, and they really, really, really, really restrict what people can build. I think the step backs could make sense. I think we also have to factor in density bonuses here, where maybe it's 3 over 1, and then there's density bonuses for specific community benefits. Maybe those additional floors aren't full floors, but they're stepped back. I think those would be the ways I'd want to approach it, rather than just saying, this is a four-story corridor, and there's no opportunities here to do something else other than that. The other thing is again the building code at least from my understanding having had some conversations with. both people on the municipal side of these conversations and the developer sides of these conversations is when you have to move from wood-based construction to steel-based construction, it significantly increases your costs. And that has to generally happen after three stories, although we had some conversations about you can do podium bases and then build with three stories of wood on top of it, although I'm not sure what the new building code says about that. And I don't know if Scott, I'm talking out of turn, no change. Yeah. So I just think that to the point made about the setbacks, making this zoning in theory rather than zoning in practice, I also think that the height limits. If we limit it at four and they say, well, we're never going to build four, we're just going to build three anyway because we're going to build wood, then there's no point in zoning for four and we're not going to get what we want. So I think those are the kinds of conversations that we should think about. as we move through this. But yeah, I think the setbacks from the street are just really tough with the lot sizes.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and I just wonder, at Mystic Ave it makes a little more sense to me. Here, I just think you're gonna have you know, even if we're talking a 30 year time horizon, you're going to have properties that just don't want that. And then you're like, Oh, we have this great public space. And then it's a three foot sidewalk and then a great public space on the three foot sidewalk. And like, especially with these lot sizes, the number of lots and the varying uses, like, I don't know. It doesn't feel in my mind, I can't see the cohesion in the same way. And It's clear to me that on Mystic Ave, like once Paula mentioned, oh, everything has 20 feet of parking in front of it anyway on Mystic Ave, it's like, okay, so it's already open, private, you know, we could better utilize that space. Here there's stuff that's up to the, you know, there's a lot of structures that are built up to the lot line in front of a three or four foot sidewalk. And if those aren't gonna move, then you're not gonna, so that's just where my brain is on it around the, I guess my point is that even if we set the curve line in principle back because we want this cohesive vision, it might end up functioning like a setback anyway because you're not going to have the coherence all the way down the corridor. That's my fear.
[Zac Bears]: And the setbacks aren't that big either.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And not to, sorry, we're just going back and forth now. I just worry that, I agree in my mind, I'd like Salem Street's too narrow, like there's not enough public space to do everything we wanna do in the public way. I just think maybe people 100 years ago made that decision and we're stuck with it. So, That's just my concern there. But yeah, I think the step backs are great. I just wonder if this strategy can work here with trying to essentially expand the public way in some way.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: In a meeting, Medford City Council, August 13th, 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, and reports and records. Records. The records of the meeting of July 23rd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I move the amendment. Negative, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, July 24th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion passes. Hearings. Petition for a special permit for hours for Panda Express. Legal notice. Medford City Clerk's Office. Notice of a public hearing. The Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom on Tuesday, August 13th, 2024 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, August 9th, 2024. On a petition for a special permit for hours filed by Panda Express, 491 Riverside Avenue, Medford MA 02155, the petitioner is seeking to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant in the commercial 1C1 zoning district at 491 Riverside Avenue, parcel ID Q-15-11. The petition seeks a special permit for hours, Monday to Sunday, 11 p.m. to 3 a.m. Petition and plan may be viewed in the office of the City Clerk. Room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford M.A. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations, aides. The City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the City Council, signed, Adam L. Herneby, City Clerk. Where this is a hearing, we will first go to the petitioner, and then I will go to councilors for questions, and then we will open the public hearing. Is petitioner for Panda Express available? Someone representing Panda Express to discuss their petition for a special permit. You can raise your hand and come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table, give me one moment. The clerk has advised that we open the hearing and continue the hearing to a date certain if that's acceptable. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there a motion to continue the public hearing to the date certain of, I believe our next meeting is September 10th. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to the September 10th regular meeting. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 from another negative that public hearings continue to the September 10th regular meeting. 24-457, request for amendment to previously approved grant of location, National Grid, to the City Council of Medford, Massachusetts, to whom it may concern. Please, enclosed, find a petition of National Grid covering the installation of underground facilities. This GOL grant of location application was previously approved, and this is a grant of location amendment request. If you have any questions, please contact Moses Okorokoro at nationalgrid.com. Please notify National Grid of the hearing date and time. To the City Council, respectfully, represents the Massachusetts Electric Company, DBA, National Grid of North Andover, Massachusetts. It desires to construct a line of underground electric conduits, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures under and across the public way or ways here and after named. Wherefore, appraised after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted permission to excavate the public highways and to run and maintain underground electric conduits together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary for the transmission of electricity. Said underground conduits to be located substantially in accordance with the plan filed herewith marked Main Street, Medford, Massachusetts, the following streets and highways referred to WR number 30658427, Main Street, beginning at approximately 15 feet southwest of the center line of the intersection of Main Street and South Street, and continuing approximately 760 feet in the south direction, National Grid is petitioning to install 5-inch ducts between 101 Main Street and 151 Main Street, approximately 370 feet of 4 to 5-inch ducts from existing manhole MH186 to MH187, and approximately 390 feet of 2 to 5-inch ducts from existing manhole MH187 to MH188, mentored ma this link to approve previously approved grant location location approximately as shown on plan attached do we have a representative from national grid to speak to this petition please come to the podium in the chambers or raise your hands on zoom It seems like a no-show night. City Engineer Wattel, do you have anything you wanna add here? Just here. This technically isn't a table, this isn't a hearing, it's just under hearing. So your initial motion to table. The motion to table, Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-456, petition for a common victor's license, shop and go. Business, Liza Trading Inc, DBA, shop and go, 374 Salem Street, Medford. Petitioner, owner, Nazia Rashid, 11 Palmer Street, Medford. On file, business certificate 2024, number 134, petition received. Letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasurer-collector received, building department received, fire department received, police department received, and health department received. Do we have a representative of Shop and Go? If you could come to the podium, please, and share a little bit about your business, and we'll go to the Councilor Scarpelli as the Chair of the Licensing, Permitting, and Signs. We're gonna have to, there's a button on there. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Scarpelli. Any other questions by members of the council on this common victor's license application? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Are you Mr. Rashid?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, okay. What's your name?
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: When you're ready.
[Zac Bears]: Madam Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 7 in the affirmative, then the negative, the motion passes. 24-455 Executive Session, Various Litigations and Claims. To the Honorable President and Members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, Dear President, Members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable Body enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21, subsection A3, to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Samari Montes versus City of Medford, MCAT docket number 22BEM02938. I also recommend that the council's agenda state in the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney John O'Connor will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. I further respect the request and recommend your honor body enter executive session pursuant to general law chapter 30A, section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Teenagers Local 25 and the city of Medford MUP-22-9555. I also recommend the council agenda state the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Jarrett Collins will be present to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Rehan Alago-Kern, Mayor. Is there a motion to enter executive session pursuant to Chapter 30A, Section 21A.3?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Bears? Yes. And the affirmative and the negative. Motion passes. We'll be entering executive session. 24-453, Medford call for election September 2024. Be it ordered that the Elections Commission be and is hereby authorized and directed to notify and warn such inhabitants of the city of Medford as were qualified by law to vote for candidates at the state primaries on Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024 to assemble at the polling places in their respective wards and precincts, and then and there to give their votes for Senator in Congress, Representative in Congress, Governor's Councilor, State Senator, State Representative, Clerk of Courts, Register of Deeds, and the polls of the said state primaries shall open at 7 a.m. and remain open until 8 p.m. We had further order that the following main polling places be and are hereby designated for use of the state primaries on September 3rd, 2024. The said polling places to be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Ward 1, Precinct 1, Andrews Middle School, Ward 1, Precinct 2, Firefighters Club, Ward 2-1 and 2-2, Roberts Elementary School. Ward 3-1, American Legion. Ward 3-2, Temple Shalom. Ward 4-1, Tufts University, Gancho Santa Ria. Ward 4-2, 22 Wacol Court, Auburn and North Street, Fondacaro Center. Ward 5-1 and 5-2, Missittuck Elementary School. Ward 6-1, West Menford Fire Station. Ward 6-2, Brooks Elementary School. Ward 7-1, Mystic Valley Towers North Building Entrance. Ward 7-2, McGlynn K-3-8 Public School. Ward 8-1, Senior Center. Ward 8-2, South Menford Fire Station. And I will recognize the Chair of the Elections Commission, Henry Malone, and our a member Erin DiBenedetto to share anything they'd like to share about this call for election for our state primary on Tuesday, September 3rd, 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Perfect. We're taking that next. Any questions for the Elections Commission on the call to election? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: That's so true. Great. And I am talking to Director Driscoll about some stuff around that too. I'll inform the council if it becomes relevant. and the president as well.
[Zac Bears]: the three candidates running on the democratic ticket that the winner that comes out of that race is the winner there's a partisan primary and there's a partisan primary there's a democratic primary there's three candidates yeah yeah
[Zac Bears]: I think we should generally avoid going down this road, but yes, there will be one candidate on the ballot in November for the Democratic Party, and there's no candidate running, I believe, for the Republican nomination.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can We could do a B paper to communicate to the public that there's an election coming up and that they can contact the elections department, 781-393-2491, or they can go online wheredoivotema.com to find out who their representative, what is district they're in, their polling location.
[Zac Bears]: I think it's not very political.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, if I could, just for our clarity, you requested to amend the paper that this be a citywide robocall to remind, and other outreach to remind people of where to vote when the election is occurring?
[Zac Bears]: For the September 3rd state primary.
[Zac Bears]: One second, Henry. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: This is already a B paper. This is an amendment to the B paper. Amendment to, okay. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and if folks contact the Elections Department, they can find out more about the early voting at City Hall, as well as the mail-out balloting in addition to voting on Election Day. That's correct. September 3rd. Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor as amended. If the amendment is accepted, I believe it now reads. Could you read it back, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so then that's the amendment. Do you accept the amendment?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so on the motion, the B paper is to request citywide robocall to remind everyone where and how to vote in the September 3rd primary. Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. On the main paper, the call to election, Motion to approve by, sorry, it's been a while now, was it by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Senator Falco, and then negative motion passes. 24454, Medford election warrant, September 2024. Warrant for the Medford September 2024 state primaries election. To the residents of the city of Medford, Massachusetts, greetings in the name of the Commonwealth. You are hereby required to notify and warn the inhabitants of said city or town who are qualified to vote in elections to vote at. I've already gone through this at the polling locations from Ward 1 through 8. On Tuesday, the third day of September 2024, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., for the following purpose, to cast their votes in the state primary election for the candidates of the political parties in the following offices, Senator in Congress for the Commonwealth, Representative in Congress, 5th District, Councilor, 6th District, as a governor's Councilor, State Senator, 2nd Middlesex District, State Representative, 23rd, 34th, and 35th Middlesex District, Clerk of Courts, Middlesex County, Register of Deeds, Middlesex Southern District. Given into our hands this 13th day of August 2024, the Medford City Council.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a copy that you want us to sign? Could you come behind the rail and have us sign it? We're down Larry today, so he would do that, but thank you, Aaron. Um, we do have councilor Leming remotely.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Council Vice President, was that you Councilor Lazzaro? It's Council Vice President Collins to accept the warrant and introduce signatures. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 24449 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, and if I may request a motion to join, I have a similar resolution. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. 24449 be it resolved. Thanks, Aaron. It was a thinner paper than I was expecting. Thanks. Thanks, guys. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss continued concerns dealing with rodent infestation in our community. Be it further resolved that we request a meeting with the Health Department and City Administration to schedule a strategic planning meeting dealing with a serious health concern across the City of Medford. And then I also have, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Health Department undertake additional efforts in partnership with Tufts Medicine and the City of Malden to provide significant additional rodent control to mitigate the impact of construction at the former Malden Hospital site on the neighboring community. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the council? I'll go and then we can go to members of the public. But I just wanted to note specifically around the Malden Hospital site, I want to thank David Tedisco who sent around a number of emails, has been organizing his neighborhood. the city of bedford and the city of malden. tufts medicine at the malden hospital site is responsible for rodent mitigation and it is on malden land and so they have been very responsive. tufts medicine has made it clear they know they need to do more. mayor christianson as well and also director o'connor and mayor longo current have been involved in some of those discussions as well to to bring whatever resources we can to bear from the medford side. Thank you for noting the rodent control ordinance that we passed. The solid waste ordinance which really is going to help focus on reducing rodent populations in the commercial areas with the combined dumpster, for lack of a better word, in the private hauler program, which should really significantly improve both the efficiency and the requirements on the business districts and the businesses in those districts to keep their trash and waste away from rodents and to also centralize removal of it, which hopefully will help on a cost basis. I think the point is really well taken around funding and staff. We've heard time and time again from our animal control that we have been working on for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. We have been working on this for a long time. road and control right now, even though everyone in the city and everyone in this room acknowledges that we need to be spending significantly more on that. So we do the best with what we have. What we have is too little and we need more funding for the city to effectively provide services such as road and control. With that, I will go to the podium and name and address for the record, please. And you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and I just wanted to note on that point, the new solid waste contract and the solid waste councils are can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the new solid waste contract, because of how we can structured it with the State Department of Environmental Protection. We are receiving some funds specifically around an educational program around the solid waste so there should be more information going out to residents. through that education program. Now that is just limited to the trash, the recycling, the composting, um, funding for other stuff like the wildlife feeding, et cetera, would have to come from somewhere else. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Apparently, I didn't realize it was going to play you off like that. Zoom's getting a little snotty. On the Walking Court thing, there is a past mitigation plan that is part of the Walking Court project. The road and control ordinance that we passed, as well as some of the building code stuff that we've done, And maybe zoning requires all major project construction to have integrated pest management plans as part of the ordinance. And Director O'Connor can talk more about that. It'd be on file with the Board of Health in her office. And then I can also talk to Director Driscoll about trying to communicate out better that there is a plan to the residents.
[Zac Bears]: Kurt, please, you have three minutes, and I'm gonna try to shut off that noise. Thank you for the time.
[Zac Bears]: If you leave, I would ask you, Larry, if you leave your phone number with Emily, we can pass it around to the council. And I just want to thank you for coming down and sharing that information with us. We do hear great things about folks who work with you when the city refers you out. But I think it's really helpful and sobering for us to hear what you're saying. That's the experience that we've had issues. We had some folks I don't know, six months ago, maybe eight months ago, from the Hillside neighborhood on the other side from here and up by like Osgoode Street, talking about a couple of problem properties where we were trying to get code enforcement out there to address overgrowth and waste, and the city not having, essentially the private owners just being able to continue to get away with it to the public detriment. you know, it is a really important issue. But I do have a question from Councilor Callahan, if you don't mind. Yes, ma'am.
[Zac Bears]: And the carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, that's not, I mean, it's obviously deadly, but it's not a poison.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming down. Yes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I can give more context on that. And again, Kit, if I get it wrong, please correct me. My understanding is that under prior trash contracts, there was kind of selective, some businesses were getting city pickup, some businesses were paying for private pickup. It was not really clear what the rhyme or reason was, but there was an equal treatment. some condo buildings were getting city pickup, some were having to pay for private. This contract straightens that out, A, from a pure fairness perspective, but it also, part of the ordinance that we passed establishes a private hauler program where there's essentially a preferred private hauler, which is the person that the city has, the group that the city has a contract with, and businesses or large residential buildings can for a contract at a preferred rate with that hauler because they're already in the community doing the public contract. And the idea is, and this contract just went into effect three, six, five weeks ago, six weeks ago. And I'm not sure when these provisions exactly start to kick in yet. I think there's some grace period in there. But the idea is that in the major squares, instead of having street pickup with city stuff overnight, that there would be potentially areas of public parking lots or areas on private property where you might have all of the businesses for that building using a single dumpster or multiple dumpsters, and then being part of this preferred hauler program to then be able to have the trash in a contained space that is subject to an integrated pest management plan and is rodent proof. I worked at roses for when I was a kid here and yeah putting out the trash. I mean I put it out because that's what my boss told me to do but I wasn't happy seeing the street lined and obviously one windstorm that night and we've seen that before in Medford Square and the trash is all over the square. So that is the intent. Councilor Collins seems to have more information than me so I will let her answer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, one thing we're looking at is the fee and fine schedule. We've heard from our building commissioner right now that it actually costs more to add a new code enforcement officer because we're only charging certain rates than they're gonna actually bring back in, so it's cost negative. Is there a way to make that more cost neutral, cost positive? And you've heard a million times in this room, we don't have enough code enforcement, so I don't need to get into that. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And I appreciate the comment. Um, one thing I think when we pass the road and control ordinance, we are limited. There's a state law around non-criminal disposition that limits the maximum amount of fines and how often you can do them. And I think that was one of the barriers for us in terms of using fines as a revenue source. I think we wanted to see, um, it's, I think it's a maximum of $300 per incident, and then there have to have certain time period between incidents. And it's a barrier that we face because of the state law around, around that. I don't know, when the legislature will change it, but that would be helpful. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, so I can answer partially. So there is this state law that over overarches what cities and towns are able to do through a non-criminal disposition. One thing we are trying, my first term, like I think basically the only thing I really was able to get done was we worked on a the snow removal ordinance and one of the things we were trying to get done was looking into this and when we passed that snow removal ordinance update, there is now a provision where if you have a repeat offender, you can put a lien on the property. not just for the fine, which is still stuck at that 300 non-criminal disposition, but also we put in the ordinance, the cost of removal of the snow. So if the city has to send out city employees or contractors to clear the sidewalks, then there could be a lien placed. I don't think we've actually gotten to that point with any property yet since that ordinance was passed. So I don't know. And then I think there is an open question as to when that comes down the road, and we actually try to do it, and then someone sues and says, no, you can't do this, where are the courts gonna land on it? We passed it in the solicitor, it went through legal counsel, but we haven't tested it yet. So we'll see, it's a litigious society out there these days.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to join and approve Papers 24449 and 24451. Seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 74 and then negative motion passes. Whereas good government is based on the fund, I'm sorry, 24450 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Whereas good government is based on a foundation of openness, clarity, transparency, and accountability. And whereas the city council, taxpayers, and residents of the city of Medford are intended to be made aware whenever the city resolves claims against the city, the school department, any employee, any department, department head, or employee of the city, by payment regardless of whether those claims are resolved prior to litigation, after litigation, but before trial, by way of judgment or decision by a court or administrative or quasi-judicial body. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the mayor provide the council with a list of all such matters resolved during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, and further, for each matter so resolved by payment, the mayor report to the council the name of each person, persons, or entity who made such claim and the amount paid to each such person, persons, or entity, if there is a legal reason that any such name should not be disclosed. such as in the case of a minor, a general description of the claim without identifying the person will suffice. And further, for each matter so resolved by payment, the mayor reports to the city council the source of the money or funding that was used to pay the claim by specifying which city or school account that money was from, whether it was paid by an insurer of the city or meant for public schools. Further, that the mayor reports to the council the names and addresses of any insurers with whom the city or school department maintained a policy of insurance whose coverage was the source of payments used to pay any such claim during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025, and further, for each policy of insurance listed by the mayor in answering the request set forth in the previous paragraph that the mayor state the annual premiums paid for each insurance policy listed in the applicable deductibles for each year during fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025. And finally, that the mayor provide the city council with a breakdown of all amounts paid to outside council for representing the city of Medford or the Metro Public Schools or any department, department head or employee of the city of Medford for any claims made against the city as a municipality or the Metro Public Schools or any department, department head or employee of the city of Medford during fiscal years 2021 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025. This request includes payments made for any work performed on such claims to the compliment and page law firm, PB&R law firm, or to any other attorneys. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do any other councilors have any questions? Seeing none, I would just note that the council has not approved any appropriations beyond the city budget for settlements. So settlements are being done within the appropriate amount of the city budget. Members of the public would like to speak. Yeah, if you leave it with, do you want us to review it now or do you want us to review it after the meeting? Okay, thanks. name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Steve, you're a minute over.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That was two minutes over.
[Zac Bears]: On that note, again, We have not appropriated a single dollar above the budgeted appropriated amount for any settlements. So there's not a monopoly money approach here. Steve, I'm sorry, but you know, you can't. They've been paid for by appropriated funds. There's no additional funding, magic money, wasted money that's going to these things beyond what is approved in the city budget. The city council, Steve, I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you. The city council has to, the city council has to approve all appropriations. It's the law. The city council has not been asked to appropriate a single dollar beyond the budget for legal settlements. Well, I would, uh, good luck. Um, any questions on the resolution? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli and Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng and then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Any further comments from members of the council? I'll just say for one Councilor, the text of the resolution, I don't have a problem with it. It's answers that already exist and could be compiled into a report, I would guess. We've seen them in the Warren articles and we've seen them in reports previously, and I'd like to see them all in one place. And I think we've said so many times here, it'd be nice to see it all. No problem with the text of the resolution. but the narrative and the arguments being put forth underlying the resolution to try to tie it into some larger accusation, it's just spurious, it's just not real. The facts of the matter are this council has never been asked to appropriate additional money for settlements and legal services since I've been on this council, which includes all these fiscal years. I haven't seen a million dollar end of year transfer to the legal budget because of all these settlements. That has to happen legally. There's about six different checks and balances on it from the finance director to the state division of local services and the department of revenue to the mayor to this body. That if that was happening, they'd have to go through all these, there'd have to be such a massive conspiracy going all the way up to the state level, to the commissioner of revenue for that to be true. that it's not true. So I'm perfectly fine asking the questions. I'm gonna vote yes on it. But the idea that this fits some sort of larger narrative or example of something that's going on about malfeasance is just false. The number of people who would have to be involved in it intentionally is not possible. And I think as everyone knows here, it would involve people who strongly disagree with each other, somehow colluding. I disagree strongly with Mayor Lungo-Koehn on a number of substantive issues. I disagree with her on some of the management style in this building. I am not, you know, it's just not possible. So I have no problem asking the questions, but when we try to tie it into this larger thing, it's just plainly political. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think he was asking if there's anything that a public records request wouldn't provide that this would provide.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments, Councilor Levee?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There would be a shot clock on a public records request. Technically, the mayor has no obligation to respond to our resolution. But that's the only difference I'm aware of. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to the public. Name and address for record at the podium. Raise your hand on Zoom. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted- You have to press the, just once.
[Zac Bears]: That should be good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for record please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The other lawsuit- I can't comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, my point being, I think the comment was made, the words monopoly money were used. And the point was made that An appropriation to pay for a settlement must be approved by the council. You may be well right that something was approved by the school department or something didn't come to the council. We had that discussion in the past. The money for that would have to be. So that's what I'm saying here. There's been no appropriation requested or made by this, requested by the mayor or made by this council to pay for any sort of settlement sum. And I'm just going to leave it there, sir. You know, there's not, there's not monopoly money activity going on. It's just false.
[Zac Bears]: So you guys and I appreciate- That's not the point that's being made. No, of course it is. No, it's not. The point that I'm making is that these settlements were approved within the confines of the budget as approved by the council. No additional money was asked to be appropriated from the mayor to the council to pay for these settlements.
[Zac Bears]: And yes, the point being that this council has never been asked to make an appropriation for money beyond the scope of the city budget for settlements. That is a fact, and it is indisputable. I'm not talking in circles. You're saying there's all this extra money that we're being asked to spend on this.
[Zac Bears]: You didn't get the law, because you own the house. Oh, Steve, you're a big man, aren't you? No, I'm giggling about your obvious political attempt to malign the city. Steve, please stop. Steve, please stop. Please stop. We are paying attention. You're the one who doesn't know. Councilor Collins, you clearly have no clue. Councilor Collins. I mean, I'm not the one making it a goof show here. I'm just commenting, he's the one who's trying to, if we're gonna throw conspiracy theories around in the public forum, they will be combated by this chair. Thank you, Harry. Council Vice President Collins. Clown show.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we do. Thank you, sir. Please stop this.
[Zac Bears]: Are you asking for a paper?
[Zac Bears]: There's an amendment to include the budget to actuals for the law department, which of course has been in every city budget for all of those fiscal years. Is that amendment acceptable, councilor Scarpelli? We'd like to include as part of the report you're requesting that we get the budget to actuals, although we already have it. It's already in the Warren articles as well.
[Zac Bears]: Anything to help? With the point of order?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? motion by councillor collins to approve as amended seconded by councillor saying and i just want to go you know we can talk about whatever losing the thread the thread is very clear i have no issue asking the administration as one councillor to compile information that already exists in this way so that it's easy to understand it This council has never appropriated a dollar beyond the city budget for settlements. And that narrative, I agree, not pushed by you, Councilor Scarpelli, but stated in this forum, is blatant misinformation and will be challenged. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's part of it. Do you just know two minutes of comments, Kyle? I allow everyone to make their comments, but I'm just saying that what you just said, I agree with you a hundred percent. And my three terms on this council, we have been diligent about asking these questions when we have no formal authority to manage anyone. You're perfectly fine.
[Zac Bears]: Kyle, I am in control of this hall, and you're just interrupting me.
[Zac Bears]: Kyle, again, you interrupted me. I'd like to have a dialogue with you. But again, when people interrupt me and they don't allow me to have the dialogue, that's when it becomes out of control, and that's when we have these sessions. Now, could I make the point that I was going to make, and then I'll give the floor back to you? Go for it. The thing we all agree on behind this council and behind this rail is we'd like to see the figures presented in a certain way. And I think all of us have raised questions about the workplace culture and the management of the city in many different aspects, many different departments. That's something we all share. when that gets mixed into a political narrative about overrides and what happens in public meetings and not liking the outcomes of certain city council votes. And you just said it, we're understaffed, right? I support an override because we've been understaffed and I think we need more money to get out of understaffing. I don't think even if everything that was just said happened and every lawsuit that Mr. South just presented to us and everything else, if all that money happened and went out the door for settlements tomorrow, it still wouldn't be reliable recurring revenue to pay people in the long term to address the city's financial issues. So when that True thing that I'm saying, it's just statistical fact that the city budget gets lumped in with the settlements and gets politicized around revenue and overrides. That's when we have a disagreement. That's when people start yelling from the crowd and breaking the quorum. And that's when I lose patience with that narrative. So I agree with you. I have those questions. I share those concerns. I raised them. I raised them when I was sitting there. I try to raise them when I'm sitting here. I don't think anyone would say that I'm their best friend of this administration. I try to work with them collaboratively because that's what the job of government is. When the narratives start getting spun up in a certain way to politicize things and attack other things that aren't related to these fundamental factual questions, What are you gonna do?
[Zac Bears]: We're looking at a city charter change right now.
[Zac Bears]: We have been exercising our, how many resolutions have we passed on legal issues, George? 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. Steve was talking about all the meetings he's come and given the report.
[Zac Bears]: We'd love to do that.
[Zac Bears]: I've been down there, but I'm sorry I missed you. I'm there all the time. I don't know. Well, maybe you miss me, but I've been down to the building.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. But in any case, My point being, I don't disagree with what you're saying when it gets wrapped up in all this other stuff, that's the division. So I'm not wrapping it up in anything and I will continue not to. And I hope that we can have, I appreciate that. And I hope that we can continue to have meetings where we have a respectful dialogue like that. Thank you, instead of yelling from the crowd, thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to approve the motion as amended, Any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-452 is mine, so Council Vice President Collins can take the chair. On the motion to take paper, 24-459, we have multiple appointments? Yeah. Can we take 2445, if we're gonna do that, 24447, 24448, and 24459? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to take those papers out of order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable Body confirm the appointment of William O'Keefe, Republican of 18 Kilgore Avenue, to the Election Commission for the unexpired term of the existing vacancy to expire March 30, 2026, in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 51, Section 16A. William will be present in person or via Zoom for the meeting, and a copy of the appointment letter is enclosed. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandon Lugo, current mayor. And I just want to add, for folks who may not know about the law, the law requires partisan balance on our Elections Commission to ensure that all parties are represented. And Mr. O'Keefe here is filling the vacant term of the Republican seat that expires March 30th, 2026. Thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Think about that, a Republican and a socialist. Yes. Any questions for Mr. O'Keefe? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please file the roll. Oh, we have a comment from Mr. Leona.
[Zac Bears]: As long as it wasn't during election season.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Assembly affirmative then negative, motion passes. 24-447, Medford Housing Authority Appointment, Michael Luongo. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the honorable body in accordance with Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the reappointment of the following individual, effective July 1, 2024, for a five-year term through June 30, 2029, as a member cited in the reference statute, Michael Longo, member of 145 4th Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, to the Medford Housing Authority for a term of five years to expire on June 30, 2029, and a copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. Do we have Mr. Longo here on Zoom? Seeing none, and whereas this is a reappointment, I'll leave it up to my fellow councilors as to how they'd like to dispose of this paper. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by? Seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. 24-448 Medford Housing Authority Appointment and Schiavone. President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, I hereby, I'm guessing it says, I hereby request and recommend that your honorable body in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the appointment of the following individual, effective August 13th, 2024, for a five-year term through March 1, 2029, as the representative of the Saltonstall Local Tenant Organization board members, as cited in the reference statute, and Chiavone, representative of the Saltonstall Local Tenant Association board members, 121 Riverside Avenue, number 206, Medford MA, 02155 to the Manford Housing Authority for a term of five years to expire, September 30th, 2029. A copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Sincerely, Brando Lugo, current mayor. We did receive an email from the administration that Ms. Schiavone was ill and unable to attend tonight, but there she was, the recommendation of the Tenants Association for the seat that goes to a public housing resident. Is there a motion? Council Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And then I get the motion passes. 24452 resolution. This is mine. Can you take that chair?
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Thank you, President Collins. The resolution is relatively self-explanatory. There are five statewide questions and three local ballot questions on the ballot for November 5th, 2024. This is question four, certified by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, which would legalize certain, decriminalize, I should say, certain psychedelic substances that have been shown in clinical studies to help address mental health issues. The decriminalization of these has occurred in other places and it has helped, gone a long way to helping a lot of folks. I personally have spoken to a number of advocates, including veterans who would like to see these options provided to them where current other pharmaceutical practices items in medicines have not been helpful to address their mental health challenges. And again, this is a limited decriminalization of certain substances that have been seen in clinical studies and by the FDA to be really helpful in addressing serious mental health challenges. So I'm hopeful that the voters will approve in November, but also I'm hopeful that the council will endorse this question as well.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, thank you, Councilor Leming. Yeah, and I completely agree. And I am hopeful that if this question passes, that the legislature may look to make some technical adjustments after passage as they did. I didn't agree with all of them on the cannabis law and some of the other ballot questions that have passed to address some of your concerns. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 24446 offered by Mayor Berena Longo-Curran, Brooks PTO Food Truck. Request for a food truck permit for the Brooks School Fall Festival Bondi Food Truck. Any discussion or motions?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Social Services Coordinator. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that the City Council approve of the following amendment to the revised ordinances, Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserved, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formerly included as Article 2, Section 6631 to 6640, by adopting the following language, the language of Capital 11, which shall be amended to replace the title of Community Social Worker with the following title, quote, Social Services Coordinator. Upon review by the Health Department, Office of Outreach and Prevention, the term social worker is very specific, It may require the city to hire a licensed social worker, limiting the pool of applicants. Upon their assessing other municipalities in similar positions, several have social services or human service coordinators for this role and fit within the current cap range in Medford. The primary responsibility of this role is to connect residents to services. As the cap would remain the same, there is no change in compensation budget. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Any questions, comments, or motions? Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve for first reading by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Unless, well, technically there was a motion to approve. Is there any objection to taking all three readings tonight, or would we like to do a first reading?
[Zac Bears]: No objections to moving through all readings this evening. All right, on the motion to approve for all three readings by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Public participation, to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertovisa.menford-ma.gov. If you'd like to participate, please come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom, and I'll recognize you. Name and address for the record, please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That was corrected. Sorry? I did correct that.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate you making the comment. As an elected body, we Once you start going down that road, you go into the road, not just of advising people how to access information, but suggesting a course of action. And I don't believe it is the, that any, you know, the city is, if you call the elections office and you say, how do I do this? They'll tell you how to do it, but they're not going to say everyone really should do this. And that's, that's gets to the point of influencing people toward the direction. It's different than providing information.
[Zac Bears]: I'm talking about the other piece of it. Which one? A well-organized Republican write-in candidate could conceivably win the November general election. No. I'm just saying. I agree that on its face, it's not going to happen, right? But it's not the job.
[Zac Bears]: But to say the election is this day, and what happens in November doesn't matter, that gets down the road of suggesting a course of action. OK.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment by members of the public in person at the podium or on Zoom? Just want to make sure, seeing no hands on Zoom, seeing no one at the podium, public participation is closed.
[Zac Bears]: 24421. On the motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 24421, the South Street Historic District Ordinance and approve for third reading, seconded by Councilor Sen. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Just to note, this is a motion to take from the table and approve, so we're technically not considering it. uh it yet um so there's no just there can be discussion about whether or not we want to take it off the table or not but we're not gonna happen would you like it to be taken off the table no no you don't yes would you like it to be voted on this evening yes all right that's that's what we can take for public participation that's the motion before us I'm guessing that having shepherded it to this point, you'd like us to vote on it. On the motion to take from the table and approve for third reading by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The second from Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. That is taken from the table and approved for a third reading. It is done.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You can go home now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that is approved for a third reading. The ordinance is now ordained. It will go to the mayor to be signed, and then will go to the clerk to be added to the book of ordinances.
[Zac Bears]: Could you just give name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for 23 years of service, Mr. Bader. I wish there were more of us here to clap for you. All right, any further motions? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I did that.
[Zac Bears]: I unscrewed it.
[Zac Bears]: Let's call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No, this is to take it off the table and approve. This is approved for third reading.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the affirmative through negative, the motion passes and the ordinance is approved for third reading. Any further motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion adjourned by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Five in the affirmative, one absent, or one present, one no. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think what might be also helpful to bring for August is now that we kind of have, I think we have like a starting point for the corridors. Sounds like we're going to do Medford Square as a starting point for the square, the squares. We might want to pick a type of zone as a starting point for the neighborhoods. And then I think it would be really useful for us to sketch out our remaining, at least that one, you know, we were kind of, we're having the two meetings a month that we had talked about in the past, one meeting being more on these like geographic trends and then the other being kind of on the citywide policies. I think at this point, it might be good for us in August to at least have like a consideration of, what we'll be considering for the geographic for the remaining meetings, I think all the way out through next summer so that we can start saying to the public. We're going to be talking about language for the Salem street corridor. This is the meeting to come to for that mystic app. Maybe it's Salem and mystic at the same one Medford square, you know, in October, uh, single family or whatever, we're going to call it the residential district that, that neighborhood district in November, so that people can start to get attuned and we can start messaging to the public. here's when to show up for your neighborhood, and here's when we're going to have the public meeting on your neighborhood and get your input. And then I think the other thing that will be helpful, um, is prior to that meeting, um, for each area, being able to have a one page or two explain like, this is what these changes would mean and look like in your neighborhood. And I think that's just a good way for us to, um, have involved folks who want to be involved in the different geographic areas and the different, um, you know, changes in their neighborhoods, which I know there are many people who will want to, are interested in that, but also do it in a, like a, like procedurally constructive way that allows us to move forward on these items while also making it clear to residents, like this is when we're going to be talking about your area. And I don't think we could work. I don't think we'll get it a hundred percent, right. You know, that will meet every single meeting will be the one for that we've outlined, but I think we should at least, Try to do that and at least give like the order in which we're going to hit them. So maybe some sort of like light early draft of that for August that we could consider I think would be helpful. And I think that will make clear to the public for the rest of the process. Like a, we've heard a lot from a lot of people for a long time about the comp plan and the housing production plan and the climate plan and all these Medford square plans and the neighborhood conversations. And also the conversations that we just have with neighbors or we have on the campaign trail, like there's been a ton of public input already. Um, here's the containers for the, uh, where we're going to have that for especially those geographic, uh, neighborhood type questions.
[Zac Bears]: And I think it's more important for the geographic side as well of like, it might be worth us coming to me and saying, like, here are the core, like, Salem Street Corridor, Mystic Ave Corridor, High Street, Main Street, and Mystic Valley Parkway, maybe those are our five corridor, I don't know if those are, like, maybe we should talk about that. West Medford Square, South Medford Square, Haines Square, Medford Square, those are our squares. And then neighborhoods, you know, I think we could say, if you're currently in an SF one or SF two, we're going to be talking about a new type of district for those. If you're currently in and people, you know, that might not be as easy for people to know. Um, maybe we could put the neighborhood, the general neighborhood names of where those districts are as part of it. Um, but basically get down to like, here's where we think the districts are going to be. We think there's going to be 12 or so areas slash districts. Um, and then we can outline like when we're going to be meeting on them. I think it also applies on the other side of climate action, the housing, etc. But yeah, I'm not sure people will be as tuned in. I think that people are gonna be like, oh, you're changing my neighborhood. I want to be a part of that in some way. Some people will be.
[Zac Bears]: Um, and I think that's, that's super helpful to understand, um, that like Wellington and maybe Wellington and West Bedford square are later in the process. I mean, I think that for me, the one thing I want to, I think we need to prioritize, like, I agree that there may be needs for different, dimensional requirements based on like what neighborhoods look like, but I also think we need to avoid the idea of, you know, just because West Medford has had the zoning that it's had, and you can see it on some of the demographic and census stuff, that it gets to not have to have the setbacks where South Medford is going to have a five foot setback or no setback. Like, I think we need to, make sure that the places in the city that have had the most exclusionary zoning are pitching in. I'm not saying West Medford, you know, up by Tower Park, suddenly you can have a zero setback six foot office building or anything like that. But I think distributionally, like, I personally don't think other than maybe some construction stuff like that, we should be treating what is like an SF2 in the Heights and an SF1 in West Medford that differently in future zoning. And I also think that where the studies may inform like future specialization in the Wellington or West Medford areas that let's say that those studies aren't going to be complete by the time we're targeting completion of this project, that we at least need to bring those up to a comparable baseline with the other squares that we may be doing now and the other quarters that we may be doing now. and then allow the results of those studies to, in the future, then further adjust and change those areas. Because I don't think, like, let's say we do Medford Square, and we also are able to do Hayden Square as part of the Salem Street corridor, and maybe even South Medford Square, I think we'll end up down this road again, where people say, But West Medford Square is not bearing any of the burden of these changes. And the answer may be, well, that's because the study is not done yet, but I don't think that's what like people are going to experience or feel. So my inclination would be that if we end up doing a Haines Square and a Medford Square and maybe South Medford Square, that like we have to bring West Medford up to at least that baseline and then allow the study to adjust that going forward. So I just wanted to throw those two things out there, but I think in general, everything you said makes sense. And I think like on the city-wide side of the non-geographic district-based stuff, I think there's some studies out there, right, like the Nexus thing and some other stuff that will be coming up later. So maybe those are the later scheduled things on that track of the project.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I just want to say that I think they're really awesome, and it's great to have the conversations and look at the maps. We had some folks in and out. I know the assessor, Koskin, I think Todd Blake was in and out, so some folks interested who aren't day-to-day part of the project.
[Zac Bears]: 14th regular meeting, July 23rd, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming is going to be absent due to his military service.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24-442, offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President. Be it resolved that the City Council send our deepest condolences to the family of long-time Medford public school teacher, Robin Irving, on recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On emotional Councilors are probably seconded by Councilors. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Records, the records of the meeting June 25th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, the records were passed to you. How did you find them? I found them in order and moved to approve. On the motion to approve it by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Second. Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, 24033 offered by Vice President Collins, Planning and Permanent Committee, June 25th, 2024, report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Cowdery and Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 24006 offered by President Bears, Committee of the Whole, June 26, 2024 report to follow. We discussed the city council's governing agenda and making updates to that agenda to reflect the progress and number of items that have been passed in the first six months of the term and to reflect our plan for the upcoming 18 months of the term. Is there a motion to approve?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 24354 and 24370 offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, June 26, 2024, report to follow. By email, Councilor Leming sent me a report to read. The Council Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee edited and approved the June Council Newsletter, then discussed a guide to the practices and procedures of the City Council, and Councilor Tseng we'll be drafting a guide for residents to council practices and procedures to be discussed at a future committee meeting. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion to approve the resident service and public engagement committee report by councilor, vice-president Collins, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Motions, orders, and resolutions 24441 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, whereas the Mayor and Medford City Council have repeatedly stated their goal to ensure the highest degree of transparency and accountability in all governmental matters, and whereas on June 28, 2024, Medford City Councilor George Scarpelli sent a letter to the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the State Auditor. And whereas the letter of Councilor Scott Polley raised various issues relating to the vote taken on significant municipal financial matters and the actions of the Medford City Council. And whereas, in light of the long-term absence of an appointed city solicitor in the city of Medford and the fact that the city's private legal counsel is a law firm hired by the mayor, and whereas the director of operations of the office of the state auditor responded to Councilor Scarpelli's letter, that the state auditor would, quote, examine the issues raised in the letter if the examination of these issues had the approval of a majority vote of the city council and the mayor, as required by state statute, and whereas the fairest and most objective fashion to resolve the issues raised in Councilor Scarpelli's letter is to have an outside agency address these issues, and determine the most appropriate way to address these issues. Now, therefore, we are resolved that the Medford City Council approve and authorize the Office of the State Auditor to examine the issues set forth in said letter. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I move that Councilor Scarpelli to approve the resolution, seconded by. Second, I'll second it. You can. Second. Oh, we have a second. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The Councilor moved to approve. I would, if Councilor has something to say, she can. She did second the motion. Okay, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The city's finances are audited every year by the independent auditor. Council Vice President Collins. Council Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, no? Councilor Callahan, then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Again, again, again, I'll leave it at this.
[Zac Bears]: Number one, if you can share the correspondence with your fellow Councilors that you've been having, that would be helpful for us to understand the impact. I did, you got it. No, you didn't. You got the letter.
[Zac Bears]: So we haven't had a chance to review it before the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Let's outline here. Let's outline here. Before I open my mouth, let me start off with number one, I'm going to lose inside a lot of votes in this chamber. In any case, what happened here, number one, there was a motion. Rule 21 was invoked on a Councilor Scarpelli paper. which moved it to another week. I believe Councilor Scaparro then withdrew the paper without any discussion. So when we talk about being stymied from discussion. Point of personal privilege.
[Zac Bears]: We were stymied from discussing that and it was withdrawn unilaterally. This council voted in an open and transparent session, and I have spoken to legal counsel about this, to suspend the rules. That happened at the first time. Councilor Scott probably asked many questions on the items. He was not stymied from asking those questions. They were discussed. The only thing that changed is that it couldn't have been postponed. That was the June 11th meeting. At the June 25th meeting, the rules were again suspended to avoid postponement to beyond the fiscal year deadline, at which point there couldn't have been action taken and the free cash would not have been able to be accessed, putting the city in financial peril. In any case, rules were suspended in an open and transparent session. There was a motion, there was an invocation. I ruled, there was a vote of the council. The council made a vote that was taken in an open session and then moved forward. At that point, council, at that point, Councilor Scarpellioli left the meeting. So when we talk about not having our voice heard, you have to be present in the room to ask the questions.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna keep talking.
[Zac Bears]: It's the reserve fund, actually.
[Zac Bears]: We can take a recess if we're going to continue to have anti-democratic disruptions of this public meeting. It's not, actually. As the chair, we need to have a respectful decorum. I'm moving a five minute recess. That was our first actually five-minute recess. We are not going to entertain further disruptions. Vice President Collins, you have the floor.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. President. You done, Vice President Collins? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to relitigate it, and I respect what you just said. There's some stuff that happened in summer 2020 that I felt similarly aggrieved by. I didn't write a letter about it. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I wish that everyone would respect the councilor's right to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, and then I think we should stop the back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just going to add some informative stuff for folks. If anyone would like to look at them, as Councilor Scarpelli noted, the meetings of June 11th and June 25th are available on YouTube and MedfordTV.org, along with, I think, the seven Committee of the Wholes on the budget that we had prior to those meetings. A lot of the things that folks are saying as questions, there are answers in those meetings, and I encourage you to watch them. There were a lot of answers presented over the most robust budget process that this council has undertaken in decades and the answers are there. There's also answers on the free cash questions and a memorandum attached to the June 25th letter and that were discussed at the June 25th meeting. So if you do have questions or concerns, there's a lot of information out there and we've made it a real point of this council to put as much information about the budget as possible, the situation that we're in, and quite frankly, the reason that If we had appropriated free cash now, the cliff that I talk about happening, if an override doesn't pass, is a cliff that happens next June. It just postpones the problem that has been very clear from all the budget meetings that we have. We have to call the question of, are we going to invest in the city? And that's the question that's been called. The free cash reserves, as noted, we are going to have a committee of the whole meeting to discuss the free cash plan outlined in the June 25th memo, or the memo from June 21st, that was on the June 25th agenda. And I really encourage people to, as Councilor Scarpelli said, watch those meetings, read the materials attached to those meetings. You will find very helpful and informative answers. With that, are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this resolution? Name and address for the record. You have three minutes and we'll alternate between the podium and Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Donna on zoom. Donna, they have an address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All right, then we will go to Eileen on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: All right, is there anyone in the chamber or on Zoom who would like to comment on this paper? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Jessica, can you hear me on Zoom? I'm going to ask for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else in the room who would like to speak, please come to the podium, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, state law requires all municipalities to have an annual audit, and it is an independent audit done by someone outside the city, and it is published when completed on the city website. Any further comment by members of the public? I'm gonna go to try Donna on Zoom again. Donna, I'm gonna try you again. I'm asking you to unmute. Hello, can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, please provide your name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record please, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That station's not a part of that.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think privatizing the parking was a good idea 10 years ago. I agree.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think Councilor Scarpelli, anyone's beating on Councilor Scarpelli, nor do I think he would allow it. But I will say that I think everyone behind this rail believes that we are doing our best diligently to dig out of a very significant hole, and that has been put in place over many decades, and that we are working to address that. So that's what the proposals and the discussions we've had. That's what the updated budget process that we've been put in place is about. That's what the assessments of capital needs are about, and that is why we are putting more information out than ever before through a much longer process about the budget than has ever happened. So that was a priority of me since day one. We've made a lot of progress and we're going to continue doing the work.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? I'm going to go to people who haven't spoken first, and then I will come back to you. I don't see any hands on Zoom, so go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It is not accurate to say that we did not know that there was money there. We did not know.
[Zac Bears]: The state, the Division of Local Services, part of the Department of Revenue. Yeah, they give money every year. No, they actually certify the city's free cash reserve balance every year. Right. And they certified that balance in June this year. So that is when we got the official certification.
[Zac Bears]: I would have to look, but it was probably probably between June 15th and 20th.
[Zac Bears]: No, it was after the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Well, and the financial team communicated to this council at budget meetings and committee of the whole, that there was going to be a free cash balance this year. similar to the previous few years for three major reasons. The use of federal funds, ARPA funding from the federal government, one-time funds, in the place where free cash reserves may have otherwise been used.
[Zac Bears]: That was a certification, yes. Right.
[Zac Bears]: It was a one-time surplus and is not reliably budgetable.
[Zac Bears]: We don't know how much is coming until it's certified. And the financial experts on our finance team have said that we should not expect to have free cash balances of $9 million going forward. It would be much more that what they have said in multiple meetings that we've had in this chamber is that we should expect, similar to what was under Mayor McGlynn and Mayor Burke, between $500,000 and $2 million free cash balance surpluses certified at the end of the year.
[Zac Bears]: Can we further comment by members of the public? I don't see any hands on Zoom, so we'll take you at the podium. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to speak, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing no hands on Zoom, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor's paper to give all non-union employees a raise was passed for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: I believe all non-union employees fall under it. So that would be you? I believe so.
[Zac Bears]: She did not. No, she recommended an alternative payment schedule that actually would have resulted in increased compensation, including retroactive pay. So if you could read the paper, it was a suggestion, and that suggestion was not accepted.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the text of the paper explicitly says she was not.
[Zac Bears]: I can't speak to what the council is going to do. I'm just one member. will you? I'm asking you. I can't make motions. I can't make motions.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments by members of the public? Seeing none, on the motion of councilor Scarpelliglia, seconded by councilor Collins to approve paper 24441, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: It is possible to move to table.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to table is undebatable. Is there a second on the motion to table? Is there a second on the motion to table? Seeing no second, the motion to table is not accepted. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins, paper 24441. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: I just unmuted him. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: No. The motion fails. 24440 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves under Mass General Law Chapter 44, Section 53A, a donation in the amount of $500 donated by the Boston Foundation Corporation in honor of Pride Month for pride activities respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Pitt, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertobeasthatmentford-ma.gov. Is there anyone who would like to speak on public participation matters, either in person or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor? That is the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, motion to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, thank you. Hi there. Just wanted to say, sorry, I was late. And I'm happy to review Committee of the Whole and Administration and Finance at whatever time is helpful. And just want to thank you, Madam Vice President, for taking on this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Nope, I can't do it myself. So thank you all for Letting me go out of order. I appreciate it. The committee of the whole we had three items in there. We had the tree ordinances, the leaf blower ordinance and the food truck ordinance. We have met on, I believe on all of them. This term tree ordinance maybe we haven't quite met on yet. No, we're still trying to finalize exactly the three different ordinances that will compose that complete package. The leaf blower ordinance was passed so that is done that is part of the city ordinances. Food truck ordinance we met on and we had a kind of to go back to basics, given the understanding of law and what our authority is and the fact that our current food truck process really doesn't isn't grounded in any sort of legal authority. So, we did have a meeting earlier this term and we need to. come back now that we have that understanding and we did ask KP Law to develop some drafts that would address all of the different components of that. We also met extensively on this governing agenda in Committee of the Whole and we as well have a few issues that have gone to Committee of the Whole The next one being a review of a draft free cash plan, which we talked about at last night's meeting. So that will be exciting. But yeah, I think I will definitely work with you, Vice President Collins to update this section. And I do have a motion after I'm done presenting that I think will help us get an updated governing agenda out. I just also want to say it's been really great to listen to everybody talk about all of the work that's been happening committee this council has been so productive. So much work has been getting done. We are a working council with working meetings advancing dozens of important policies and ordinances that are really transformative. So just really grateful to everybody for that. In the administration and finance committee, we've made some real progress on some of our big issues. So we did finalize and finish the budget ordinance as well as held the FY 25 annual budget process under that new ordinance. Which led to the earliest passage of the budget, certainly that I can remember, as well as a, you know, months long process that really allowed us to get in on the ground floor and understand why the budget was being put together the way it was being put together. which I'm really excited to continue. We also had major progress around revenue generation with the three ballot questions approved by the council and with the approval of the mayor that are going on the ballot in November to raise revenue using an overrides and debt exclusions for the first time in the city's history under prop two and a half in the past 44 years. Those will address structural underfunding in our schools, invest millions in updating our high school schedule, investing in pay and benefits and increased staffing for educators, hire a permanent DPW street and sidewalk crew that can go out multiple times a week. Build a brand new fire headquarters and on Main Street. So I'm really excited about those initiatives that really start to address decades of underfunding and the deep needs of our community, both for ongoing operating expenses and our capital needs so I'm really encouraged by the efforts so far in collaboration that got us to this point and excited to work with everyone in Medford to get this passed in November and make sure that our city and our students and all of us have the resources that we need to invest in Medford's future. We have not yet received an update on the classification and compensation study. So there was money in the budget for that. I noticed in the city budget for fiscal 25. So I am hoping we can use either the next six months or the second year of the term to really dive deep and make sure that the compensation of our employees and the city reflects the work that they do and also reflects the competitive amounts needed to bring on the best and make sure that we don't lose talented staff to other communities that are paying more. In terms of the ordinances, as I noted, we have ordained the budget ordinance, the city's first ever budget ordinance, which is really exciting. We have also worked on and met on the commercial vacancy tax. I think from city staff perspective, there was an intent to maybe look at a different approach potentially around commercial vacancies. We'll continue those discussions. and look at all the tools that we can to make sure that we don't have vacant properties just sitting vacant for tax benefits or other situations where we see the impact both economically and visually and aesthetically on our community. Good landlord tax credit we have put that forward to implement that local option. We need to meet in the next six months, and I think we can keep our goal of December of getting this in place to as part of our comprehensive housing strategy. including things like rent stabilization and our zoning reforms to address the housing prices here in our community and support those who are doing the right thing and working to keep down rent increases and keep rent prices from skyrocketing. And then really everything else on here in terms of ordinances is something we're probably looking at in next year. So looking at community benefits agreements potentially that may need to be part of looking at our planning and permitting, zoning update project as well, the percent for art ordinance, paid family medical leave and extended illness leave bank. Those are some initiatives we will be looking at in the second year of the term. And then this fall, really excited to work on, per the budget ordinance, the financial review of the city's financial status and really making sure that we are engaged year-round with our finance department and the city administration to know where we're at. build out both our understanding of the current fiscal year, but begin deeply the process of long-term financial planning, revenue forecasting, and making that work which is happening in the finance department and the mayor's office more transparent. and more open to the public. I think we understand as a council what the city's financial position is, why we need overrides, why we need debt exclusions this time, this year to address budget issues, and working to get the technology and the staffing and the communications in place to further explained to the public, it may be in a clearer and more concise way. The city's long-term financial planning needs is definitely a priority of this council and of the administration and finance committee. So, yep, that committee has definitely done some exciting work and I'm really grateful to all the members of the committee and every member of this council for everything that they have been working on so far this term.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to motion to request that all committee chairs submit an update to the president and vice president on their committee, if there's any changes they'd like to see made to the governing agenda, any items that have been made, and for the president and vice president to also use the newsletters as a guidepost for updating the governing agenda and putting out an updated version of this document, including a short summary of to date, you know how many meetings we've had and what major accomplishments have been. Achieved by this council so far this term.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Paola, for presenting this. I had one question, which is just the timeline side of the document. Is that, have we seen that yet? It wasn't in the packet. I just wanted to, okay. Oh, yeah, it's.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Very tiny. I think the only comment I really have at this point, I'm going to need to review it and digest it. that I hope that it helps, it's helping me to see the scope and scale of the ambition of the project that we have been working on and are undertaking and I hope to anyone watching or present that they can also see just how much work we are doing on this and how ambitious this project is. I think it's really exciting and big for Medford to be taking this on and the culmination of at least 10 years of this council before I was here, as well as the planning office, doing really amazing work. So beyond that, there's so many details that I'm going to leave my comments very general. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just had a couple questions on the zoning with the neighborhood, the neighboring cities and towns. Would it be possible for when we get the final versions of those to have one that is just the Medford and then one with both? And could we add Everton if possible? And... I'm guessing that we kind of tried to take the zones from the neighboring communities and comp them to ours. Is that what the color?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Thank you for the efforts. I just think, you know, when I talk about, and I don't know, maybe it might be worth Melrose too, but it's just interesting to see how our zoning is like almost like a pizza pie of the surrounding communities. It's an interesting analysis to look at, but I think the average would show why Wellington is the way Wellington is a little bit too. Yeah, definitely, of course.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Council, 13th regular meeting, June 25th, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: 7 present, 9 absent, the meeting is called to order. Please rise and salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 24429 offered by President Bears. Resolution celebrating Tom Lincoln's service as Brooks Estate President. Whereas Tom Lincoln has served as President of the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust and Belt since its founding and Whereas Tom Lincoln led the efforts for the permanent preservation and conservation of the Medford Brooks estate, including both the historic buildings and open space. And whereas Tom Lincoln has volunteered tens of thousands of hours to Medford over the past 30 years, helping to draft legislation to establish M-BELT, run hundreds of meetings and events, recruit volunteers, raise funds, write grants, and be the public face of M-BELT to the Medford and regional community. And whereas after decades of service, Tom Lincoln recently stepped down as M-BELT president and has returned to the ranks of volunteers and citizen advocates, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Tom Lincoln on his storied career, preserving and restoring this essential city-owned property for future generations. Be it further resolved that we invite Mr. Lincoln to attend a future city council meeting to present him with a citation for his achievement. Be it further resolved that we invite the entire Medford community to attend the annual Brooks Estate picnic on Saturday, July 13th, 2024 from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Shepherd Brooks Manor to enjoy food, community and to celebrate Tom Lincoln's work to preserve and conserve the Medford Brooks estate for all time. Any comments by members of the council? Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I have been lucky to serve now for five years as the City Council's representative on the MBELT board and work with Tom. And Tom's tenacity, his experiences, frustration with the pace of change are all something that I've come to know very well, and I am excited to thank him and congratulate him. He is going to keep working with the Brooks Estate and on the Brooks Estate, which I think is fantastic. We also have a new president, Carly Nesson, a Medford resident who stepped up to take on the role, and we're really excited to see what the next 30 years at the Brooks Estate looks like as we hope to finalize the master plan that was started 10 years ago. Much of it has been done in terms of the restoration of the building, and now it is time to build the access drive, finish the restoration, and make sure that everyone in every part of Medford can access the wonderful open space that is the Brooks Estate. So thank you all for your comments. I'm sure Tom appreciates them, and is there a motion? On the motion approved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven from the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. 24-430, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Sylvia de Placido on her retirement as assistant city clerk and thank her for her decades of public service to the city of Medford. Before I go to councilors, I do have a statement from the city clerk who could not be here tonight. He didn't know when he made plans that Sylvia would be retiring, so he's traveling, but he did want to say something. He said, inside room 103, I am the city clerk, but Sylvia is the boss. Capitalized. Even though I am a Springsteen fan of more than four decades, Sylvia is still the boss. She gave this city 32 years of selfless, dedicated service. If we count Dorothy Donahue's tenure as acting city clerk, and we should, then Sylvia has worked with four different city clerks, beginning with Joe McGonigal. She knows everything there is to know about the city clerk's office. She's our living encyclopedia for literally everything our office touches. Sylvia leads by example. Behind her seemingly gruff exterior is one of the kindest, funniest people we will ever know. Sylvia's patience and humor have pulled our entire team through some particularly challenging times. She has been an incredible teacher and mentor. She is completely unafraid to tell me what I need to know, when and how I need to know it, in words that are unequivocal and easy to comprehend. She is constitutionally incapable of sugarcoating anything. These are virtues. I will miss Sylvia's daily presence, but she's about to find out that she's only a phone call away. I'm thrilled for her as she embarks on her hard-earned, well-deserved retirement. My hope for her is nothing but happiness and more priceless time on the lake with Peter, Michael, Peter, Mark, and her beloved grandchildren. Well done, boss. Well done, and thank you. It bears repeating.
[Zac Bears]: Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you and just I want to say congratulations and your service has been so appreciated. And my three terms, my first term, I didn't get to know as well because you were in here and many of us were not in this building during the pandemic, but you were here with the clerk's team processing birth certificates, marriages, death certificates. I mean, it is the basics of civic life that run through our clerk's office, nevermind council agendas, which may not be the basics, but there's something. since I've been vice president, now president, especially this past couple of years, I've spent a lot of time in the clerk's office and I've appreciated your humor, your welcoming me and pointing out that I may be sitting at the desk too much and shouldn't be an honorary member of the clerk's team as often, but always made me feel welcome and always tried to feed me candy and cookies, which, I appreciate and my doctor regrets. So it's been a real joy to spend time with you, Sylvia, and to get to know you and to see the end of many years of service, just the last tail end. I didn't get to see the first 26 years, but the last few have been a privilege. So congratulations. Enjoy the pontoon boat with the family. And I'll miss having you here too. When Adam wasn't here, it's been great to chair meetings with you. Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. All right, Madam Clerk, please. Well, I need a motion first. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24-431, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate Janice DePace on her retirement as principal clerk and thank her for her decades of public service to the city of Medford. Go to councilors. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Now I'm gonna read from the clerk about Janice. Janice does a little of everything in our office. She brought vast knowledge and experience with her when she came to City Hall from the schools, and she has transformed operations for our team. She has been a go-to resource for businesses, dog owners, restaurants, retail establishments, and anybody who needs information related to city government. Speaking of go-to resources, she's been a go-to resource for everybody at City Hall. She arrived at the clerk's office with a large network of teachers and former students, all of whom she remembers by name, when they arrive in Room 103 for copies of their birth certificates, to file their marriage intentions, and to renew their dog licenses. and all of whom remember her by name with kind words as well. Janice nails our customer service mission every single day, leading with kindness. She has passion for her job, combined with skills that can't be taught in any training session, along with a cosmetology license for anybody who might need a quick cut or trim. She enjoys our customers and her colleagues, and they enjoy her. She leaves City Hall with many years of service to our city and our residents. I'm grateful for the work that she's done and for her friendship, commitment, and humor. She has made our city a better place in which to live and work. I wish her the best on her next adventure. And I will just say to Janice that it has also been a privilege to serve and see her service in the clerk's office. Similarly to Sylvia, Janice has always made me feel welcome in the office. We always have a story to exchange or a bit of news to share. But I think especially something to say is, I think it's both a testament to their being great colleagues and friends, but also a loss at the same time that Janice and Sylvia get to go out together. They both get to retire luckily at the same time. And I think maybe neither of them could have imagined serving without the other in the office. So they both have dedicated so many years of service and are able to step out into their retirement or their next adventure. together, and I think that's a beautiful story. So, with that, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion by Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. 24-419 offered by Councilor Tseng. Resolution congratulating Donna Lasky on her retirement. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Donna Lasky on her retirement from her long and storied career as a teacher in the Medford Public Schools and thank Mrs. Lasky for her years of service and care for Medford students. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I was neither a student or a parent or a colleague of Donna Lasky, but I was a student at Medford High with a Lasky child. And I just know the impact that that family has had at multiple generations on this community and the service they provided to the city and to our young people. So I'm incredibly grateful for Donna and for all of you for being in Medford and giving so much to our community. Any further comments? Would anyone from the public like to speak?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Two meetings for you guys, I guess. Congratulations. on the motion, oh, Director Hart.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, seven the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 24435 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council sends our deepest condolences to the family of former Medford Police Detective Lauren Kane on her recent passing. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Would anyone from the public like to speak on this item? Seeing none in the chamber and none on Zoom, please rise if you are able for a moment of silence. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. The records of the meeting, records, the records of the meeting of June 11th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find the records? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the record, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, several affirmative, no, the negative, the motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees, 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins. Planning and permitting committee, June 12th, 2024. Report to follow, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by second, seconded by Councilor Ming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative none of the negative the motion passes refer to committee for further discussion to 4-4 to 2 offered by councillor Lazzaro Whereas the Massachusetts Department of Transportation is planning to make changes to a busy intersection in the heart of Medford Square Which will impact drivers cyclists and pedestrians for many years to come and whereas the Medford Bicycle Commission attended an informational meeting on and express concerns with the plan made thus far. Now, therefore, be it resolved that a representative from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, familiar with the plan, shall meet with the Medford City Council, a representative of the Medford Bicycle Commission, and a representative of the City of Medford Traffic and Transportation Department in committee to discuss said plans. Councilors, which committee would you like to refer us to?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilors are to refer to the Public Works and Facilities Committee seconded by Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: If everyone could shut off their microphones, please. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 2-4-426, 2-4-418, 2-4, you said 4-2-3? Dash 4-2-3, 2-4-424, and 2-4-436. In that order, seconded by? Second. By Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. To take these, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24426, be it ordered that the city council enact a temporary moratorium on the issuance of licenses and permits for the purpose of operating a methadone clinic distribution facility in the city of Medford, and be it resolved, this moratorium remain in effect until a recommendation is received from the mayor's office proposing amendments to the zoning use chart to establish safe access to said facilities in the city of Medford, and be it further resolved, all meetings related to this topic be held in the hybrid fashion, accessible to both citizens, both in person and virtually. We do have an update. We received a letter from Habit Opco LLC today, June 25th, 2024. I'll read it now. Re Habit Opco LLC application for a special permit for Treatment Center 360 Salem Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Dear city councilors, we're writing on behalf of Habit Opco in connection with tonight's city council meeting. As you know, on April 16th, Habit Opco applied for a special permit. for a comprehensive treatment center, quote, CTC proposed for 360 Salem Street. Yesterday, we learned of a proposed resolution, 24-426, placed on the meeting agenda. The resolution urges the city council to impose a citywide moratorium on opioid treatment programs. We thought you should know that Habit Opco is withdrawing its special permit application for 360 Salem Street. It intends to search for a different location within Medford, We made this decision carefully after meeting with officials, reviewing public comments, and weighing relevant considerations. As you know, after filing its application, HABIT OPCO reached out to city staff and officials, including city councilors, to discuss any concerns. It is an open-door policy to discussing issues and considering feedback, and we intended to approach the special permit hearing with the same openness. We still feel we could address neighborhood concerns, but we recognize that there are times when a certain amount of adversity can undermine a cause. We take as genuine the comments of many Medford residents that they are not averse to the use or blind to the need, but have concerns with the proposed location. Habit Opco is committed to ensuring that victims of the opioid crises have access to life-saving medical care. Medication-assisted treatment is the best tool we have to combat that crisis that has claimed thousands of lives in Commonwealth. There's an urgent need for treatment facilities, yet locations are not easy to find. We look forward to working with the city to find an appropriate location for a CTC, and we thank all of those who have provided helpful insights over the last two months. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Douglas Troyer, attorney for Habit OpCo LLC. We also have Planning Director Hunt and legal representation here. And with that, I will turn over to Councilor Scarpelli. I will just remind everyone again, the application has been withdrawn. The council is not the special permit granting authority for this type of use. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I think we have noted here that all of the parties involved, whether it's the city council and city councilors or planning office or residents and community members who are engaged and even the petitioner, as they noted in their letter, they did want to hear the feedback of the community. They did want to engage in good faith. They did want to do this the right way. So that is where we are. We have an intent and an approach, I think, to work together to find a site, if they want to continue looking in Medford, that meets community needs. And I think that is what we ask of everyone who petitions for a special permit of any kind. I also want to note that the zoning we have now does need to be updated. We're working through that process. This was a special permit process, so there still would have been a process to require. They couldn't just come in and do it in a residential area, which I think is an important point to note. We do have the planning director and council present. I do want to invite Director Hunt up. to speak, and then I'm hoping we can refer this to the committee to come up with something. I know that we got some legal advice around the specific structure of something like this, how it would need to be structured. People with substance use disorders are a protected class, so we have to be very careful in the legal construction of anything around this. Right now, if we were to institute something with the current zoning, we would ban any medical office from opening in the city of Medford whatsoever. So we really need to go through the diligent process to get this right and follow the law. So that's what we will do. And with that, I will go to the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to confirm what you just said for simplicity's sake. The application has been withdrawn. There's currently no application to consider this from this company anywhere in the city. It will be withdrawn at tomorrow night's City Community Development Board meeting, Thursday's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. And as discussed in the letter and as discussed by Councilor Scarpelli, the intent of all parties is to have more discussions about as a city developing and looking at this in the zoning context and from the applicant working in good faith with the city and community members to find a site if they want to continue in Medford, that is not in a residential area.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, but was there a motion to refer? I couldn't quite tell.
[Zac Bears]: I did invite the director and council up for specific questions to them. So I will, we'll do that and then we'll go around and then we'll be done. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: This is a question for Council. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We're not going to do this tonight, y'all, so... All right, would you, we can stop right now if we want. Please don't disrupt the public meeting. Please don't disrupt the public meeting. We have a good resolution here. And if you want, we can shut this down right now.
[Zac Bears]: We have a motion to refer to planning and permitting committee. Is there any further questions or comment for council or for the planning director? I don't think so.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions for council, for members of the council? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to Planning Committee and Permanent Committee for further discussions around zoning, seconded by Vice President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, six affirmative, one negative, the motion passes. 24418, recommendation for Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees. June 10th, 2024 by electronic delivery regarding recommendation for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board of Trustees. I respect the request and recommend the honorable body approve the following candidates to serve on the Board of Trustees for the Medford Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we just moved through the item and it has been disposed of. I'm happy to take it up under public participation or public participation item from Charles Rodriguez.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna keep reading. In accordance with the MedFed Affordable Housing Trust Fund Ordinance, the Board of Trustees shall be appointed by the Mayor. Upon approval from the City Council, the Board must consist of seven members, including the Mayor or their designee. The Ordinance stipulates that the initial appointment of Trustees must be staggered, with three members serving a one-year term and the remaining four serving a two-year term. Subsequent appointments and reappointments except for the Mayor's seat will be for two-year periods. Below are the six recommended candidates with their initial staggered terms. One, Kayla Lesson, two-year term. Two, Roberta Cameron, two-year term. Three, Lisa Ann Davidson, two-year term. Four, Carrie Weaver, one-year term. Five, Penelope Taylor, one-year term. Six, Lisa Son, one-year term. Furthermore, information on each candidate is enclosed to support the candidate recommendation submission. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I would invite the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability Director or the Chief of Staff to present the nominees. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Welcome, Aditi.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Sure. I mean, I would have. Please don't disrupt the public meeting we have business to attend to. If a councilor wished to make a... On a motion for councilor to recess for five minutes, seconded by Councilor Tseng? President Bears?, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the recess.
[Zac Bears]: The motion was disposed of per the council rules. There was a vote that was taken and disposed of it. The agenda, I can't call people out of order, that needs to be a vote of the council. Councilor Scott probably could have proposed that, there could have been a second, we could have had a vote on it. I can't just discretionarily move items around, that is not my role. The agenda's written the way it's written, public participation's at the end of the meeting. There was a vote, there was a motion and a vote. Once an item is disposed of with a motion and a vote, it is concluded. It's just the rules, thank you. I'm sorry, I have to follow the rules. I have to follow the rules. I have to follow the rules. All right, let's keep yelling personal attacks. I don't think that'll get us anywhere. If this is how it's gonna go, I'm just following the rules.
[Zac Bears]: You should, you don't have to do a vote, but yeah, 842, yeah. The Office of Plenary Development and Sustainability has received and reviewed applications for the Board of Trustees and has met applicants to understand their backgrounds and interests in affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund will convene once a month on Wednesday with its first meeting to be scheduled in July 2024. The specific date for monthly meetings will be determined after consultation with the trustees. The trust may establish a subcommittee or a working group that will meet more frequently to develop an action plan for the trust. Below are the six recommended candidates with their initial staggered terms. Kayla Lesson, two year term. Kayla Lesson is a resident of South Medford and works as an asset manager with legal background. Kayla has 13 years of experience working for a real estate company that owns mixed income apartment buildings in the greater Boston area. Kayla has worked with Mass Housing, HUD, and HUD regulators to manage regulatory compliance. She is well-versed in affordable housing policies and programs initiated by Mass Housing, the Executive Offices of Housing and Livable Communities, and Mass Development. Roberta Cameron is the Community Preservation Act Manager with the City of Somerville and serves as Chairperson on the Medford Community Preservation Committee. As a former planning consultant, Roberta has 25 years experience working with Massachusetts cities and towns. Her areas of expertise include affordable housing, economic development, land use, public facilities, and impact assessment. She's also established and advised affordable housing trusts and community preservation committees across the region. Lisa Ann Davidson is a resident and deputy housing director with the city of Somerville. In the past, Lisa has served as a trustee on the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust Fund and as a director of the Somerville Homeless Coalition. She's created five permanent support housing programs and has worked with the unhoused population for nearly 20 years. Carrie Weaver resides in Glenwood and works as a child care professional. She is passionate about affordable housing and currently lives in an affordable home. Carrie is eager to share her lived experience in affordable homes. She has also assisted the Medford Housing Authority in administering the family self-sufficiency program for voucher holders. Lisa's son works as an architectural designer specializing in sustainability and affordable housing. She holds a dual master's degree in architecture and urban planning with a focus on ecological design. Lisa has worked with local housing authorities to retrofit affordable housing in order to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. She also has experience reviewing development projects and has volunteered at Homeless Outreach and Habitat for Humanity. Penelope Taylor works at the City of Somerville's Office of Housing Stability as a Program Development Policy and Outreach Coordinator. She advocates for low-income clients with housing needs and assesses the effectiveness of housing programs. She serves on the Somerville Residential Anti-Displacement Task Force, researching housing policy suggestions for the city, and also served on the Union Square Neighborhood Council Board for three terms, focusing on affordable housing, and all six of the appointees are Medford residents. With that, I'll go to Aditi. If there's anything else you'd like to present, and then we can go to members of the council for any questions before we vote on the appointments.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Do members of the council have any questions? Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion or questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, there's a motion by Vice President Collins to approve the appointments of Kayla Lessin, Roberta Cameron, Lisa Ann Davidson, Carrie Weaver, Lisa Sun, and Penelope Taylor to the Affordable Housing Trust, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, six present, one absent. The appointments are confirmed.
[Zac Bears]: 24423, if I don't hear a motion. 24423, recommendation for Community Preservation Committee appointment request. Dear President Grayson, members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable Bobby confirm the appointment of Ada Gunning of 40 Magoon Avenue to the Community Preservation Committee for a term of three years, effective July 1, 2024. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. May it be an illegal current. And we have Manager DuPont of the Community Preservation Committee.
[Zac Bears]: We have Ada here. Hi everyone. I've already said it, name and address for the record, and your time is yours.
[Zac Bears]: Fantastic. Any questions? Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Six. The motion is approved.
[Zac Bears]: While we're on the suspension, Councilor Scarpelli is moved to take public participation. Thank you. Hello, participation. We have Cheryl Rodriguez. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, you have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and just, I can answer some of your question if you want, in terms of procedurally next steps. So the council voted on the paper that had been proposed, and we'll be looking at the zoning element of this, which is within our purview, and what the state law allows us to do, what the legal cases allow us to do. In terms of, in general, prevention, health, addressing substance use disorder, and the opioid crisis, we do have the Office of Prevention and Outreach, which has done some really great work on that in this city. and they convened the Preserving Mental and Behavioral Health Commission, which we established three or so years ago. In terms of the rights of providers, right, I get the four R's, and I think it's important for the city to engage in looking at that, but the provider themselves as a corporate entity, non-profit or for-profit, they do have a right to petition for zoning or to want to open a business or something like that. So the city can't control them from coming and asking. And then we have to follow the laws of the public process as laid out. So I think that's why you found, you know, that there's all this, you know, there was a special permit of the zoning board for this use in this district. So that's the process that outlines there, what has to happen there, engaging those other bodies, you know, in a more holistic look at mental health and behavioral health. That is the work of the Office of Prevention and Outreach, but they don't actually have approval or denial authority over special permits. So that's why there's some mismatch there and why certain groups are engaged in certain elements of the process. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I would just note that the City Council does not have the authority or control over pretty much anything that was just stated. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Marie Izzo, name and address for the record, please. If someone could unmute Marie, for some reason I'm not a co-host right now.
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name is Zoom, Jess H. And I will note that if there is a reapplication, it would have to follow the public process and there would be a special permit process with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Jess, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: The Office of Prevention and Outreach does work on this and the health department. And in terms of the application, the city did not solicit this private business to apply for this. They decided to apply for it.
[Zac Bears]: It's based on the zoning. If they wanted to go back to the site, if they were, for example, to reapply, the zoning board of appeals would approve a special permit for this use in that district.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Podium name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I would note, once again, a vote was taken, and per the council rules, once a vote is taken and disposed with, that concludes the discussion on the paper. So, thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I was following the votes. Thank you. refer you to the council rules once again. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I haven't said that once, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, I would just note, Mr. Jones, the application was withdrawn. I understand. So I'm just going to speak now. Thank you. So the application was withdrawn. The council's not the special permit granting authority. It's not our role under the state chapter 40 a zoning law for us to insert ourselves in the special permit process of another special permit granting authority. And I think you heard from all of the city staff involved from many Councilors that we wanted and from the proponent from everyone here. And people have emailed me. If you got an email back from me, I think you'll know what I said in the email back. I said, I don't think this is the right place, and I don't think this is the right process. The right location, or the right place as being in Medford? The right location. Most of the responses have said, We believe that this has a place in the spectrum of treatment. We'd like to see it in a commercial industrial district. I think you would find that basically everyone who acted and was involved in this process from the city side, whether that's the planning office, representatives from the health department, members of the city council, we worked to play our role as best as we could to have the public comment heard. And the result was that the applicant said, we heard this isn't gonna work here. and we're withdrawing. So the result is it's not coming, the application is not applied, and now we wanna come and work with all parties involved to put this in a place where people feel comfortable that it should be here. So that was what happened, that was the result, and I think that's being lost a little bit in this discussion. So I just wanted to state that when we talk about what roles different people played in the process here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate the comment. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Carrie. Any further public comment on the matter? Seeing no hands on Zoom and no one at the line in the chambers of the podium, It's public participation so can make motions. I mean, if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. I'm going to address the record, please, in three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm still on my three minutes. Yeah, I'm still on the three minutes. Hey, Zach, I'm still on my three minutes. Yeah, you can be done now. You can be done here.
[Zac Bears]: You have no clue why this person isn't here. You have no idea what, Steve, can we have a conversation? Okay, can you stop interrupting me? Please stop interrupting me. I want to note to you that you have no idea why this Councilor is not present, and maybe they had a major personal issue in their life today and are still showing up at this meeting, and I'd like you to give them a little grace.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Steve. We'll see about that. All right, Steve. Please direct your comments to the chair and please avoid your personal diatribes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: In cities like- That's not true, we do have a- Oh, you do? We have a social team, yeah, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I would once again note that given the Chapter 48 zoning process and that the Zoning Board of Appeals is a special permit-granting authority, it is generally not recommended for the Council to insert politics into situations or to be serving as political actors in permitting processes because it opens the cities up to liability and lawsuit. Would you like to speak? Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. And I just want to say for my record, since we're throwing around the shame on thing, the people in the room laughing at that comment, I'm disappointed in you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. All right, 24-424, recommendation for the License Commission. Reappointment requests. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law Chapter 138, sections four and five, approve the reappointments of Alan Martirana, registered Republican, 25 Blakely Road, Medford, MA, 02155, and Ben O'Sullivan Pierce, registered Democrat, 10 Tyrell Road, Medford, MA, 02155, to the License Commission for a term of six years each. To expire June 1, 2030, both Alan and Ben will be present via Zoom. Copies of their resumes and appointments letters are attached. Already serving, Robert Delafano, registered unenrolled independent, 65 Hume Avenue, Medford MA 02155. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. We may, I see Ben, and I saw Alan earlier. We may have lost him due to the late hour. Madam Chief of Staff, do you wanna share anything about these applicants? And if I am correct, I just wanted to, and you can correct me, state law requires the License Commission to have partisan balance because of probably 100 years ago, we're only given licenses to people from our own party, something like that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. If there's anything you want to add about the applicants, it looks like they are for reappointment.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I do see Ben O'Sullivan Pierce. Ben, if there's anything you'd like to say at this time, feel free to raise your hand or wave at me and I can unmute you. Seeing he's all set. Any questions from members of the council on these reappointments to the License Commission? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. And the License Commission appointees are reappointed. The final paper under suspension currently 24436, Medford Housing Authority appointment. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body, in accordance with Mass General Law, Chapter 121B, Section 5, confirm the appointment of the following individual for a five-year term through March 1st, 2029, as the quote, representative of organized labor, unquote, as cited in the reference statute, James R. Lister, representative of organized labor, 193 Winthrop Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155. A copy of the appointment letter is attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. I saw Jim earlier. I'm looking around to see if he's here now. Jim, if you're present, raise your hand or wave and I'll recognize you, but I'll go to the chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. As this is a motion for reappointment, is there anyone on the council has a question or any question or any other comment on this appointment? Seeing none, is there a motion? Vice President Kong. on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve. Seconded by? Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 6 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? So the motion, well, technically we've gone through the suspension motion, so I think we're just reverting back to the regular order of business. 24358, petition for a special permit for hours, Great American Beer Hall, LLC. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, the Medford City Council will hold the public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom on Tuesday, June 25th, 2024, at seven o'clock p.m., a link to be posted no later than Friday, June 21st, 2024, on a petition for a special permit for hours filed by the Great American Beer Hall, LLC, the petitioner seeks a special permit for hours Monday through Sunday. 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. The petition and site plans for this project may be viewed in the office of the city clerk, room 103, Medford City Hall, Medford MA. The site plans can also be reviewed on the city's website at www.medfordma.org slash board slash community dash development dash board by clicking on current CD board filings. Call 781-393-2435 for any accommodations aides. The city of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer by order of the city council, Adam Hurtubise, city clerk. So we do have here a petition for a special permit for ours, Great American Beer Hall. Previously, we granted a special, sorry, a conditional convictional license, conditional on the occupancy permit and the issuance of all necessary approvals by the relevant department heads. I do see Brian Zartha here on Zoom. Thanks for bearing with us, Brian. I'm going to have us hear from the petitioner as to their desire for the special permit hours 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. and then I will open the public hearing. Brian, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Brian. Do we have any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing to people in favor, opposed, or otherwise having questions or comments on the project. Public hearing is open. Brian, are you in favor of the project?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone else in favor or otherwise commenting on the project in this public hearing? Please come to the podium, share your comment, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Any further comments in this public hearing? I have Gordon Wallace. Gordon, please give name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any further comments in this public hearing? Chris, I know you're here in person, but I do see your hand up on Zoom, is that for this? Okay, just wanted to check. Comment or? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. With that, I will declare the public hearing closed. Any motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, and that's a 30, 60, 90 day review upon opening. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to approve the special permit with a 30 and 60, 90 day review upon opening, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 24420 petition for a common victor's license, raising cane restaurant on file, business certificate 2023 number 106, petition received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation received, treasure collector pending final approval, building department pending final approval, fire department pending final approval, police traffic impact pending final approval, and health department pending final approval. Before I recognize the council for the petitioner, I just want to note that we have recently done, I think, a relatively similar conditional common victual license pending those approvals on these issuance of an occupancy permit. So I just wanted to put out that context. With that, I will turn over to hear from our petitioner, Kathy Desmond, from representing Rice and Gates.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. Public hearing is open to people in favor, in opposition, or otherwise would like to comment on this project. Sorry, Sylvia. Public hearing is open.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else on Zoom or in the chamber who would like to comment on this Common Vixer's license request? Seeing no one in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to approve. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve pending the six-day public comment period and conditionally on the approvals and the occupancy permit. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Kathy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I saw Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take communications from the mayor and suspend rule 21. Second. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Communications from the mayor and suspend 21. By Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. 24417 offered by Mayor Brienna Lungo-Koehn. Community Preservation Committee Annual Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2025. I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve on the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, the Community Preservation Fund revenues in the amount of $2,068,920. In addition, I respect the request that your honorable body approve on the recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee, the Community Preservation Fund expenditures in the amount of $2,068,920 as follows, open space, 206,892, community housing, $310,338. Historic Preservation, $206,892. Administration, $103,446. General Remainder, $1,241,352. Total $2,068,920. Furthermore, the CBC is included in closing its updated annual plan by reference as documentation to support the budget submission. CPE Manager, Theresa DuPont, and CBC Chairperson, Roberta Cameron, will be in attendance to address any questions. Thank you for your consideration. respectfully submitted Breanna Lungo-Koehn Mayor. And before I turn it over to you. manager Dupont, I just wanted to clarify my understanding that we are approving kind of the overall allocation, but then you will go through your standard project to approve these specific projects. And, you know, there will at least be 207 or so thousand on open space spent, 207,000 historical reservation, 310,000 or so on housing, and then the rest would be distributed amongst those categories. Is that correct?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. Then with that, I will turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions regarding the base allocation for CPC funds for fiscal 25. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any council member?
[Zac Bears]: Well, if you can get us a color printer in the clerk's office, that would be a start.
[Zac Bears]: No, not your job. That was a message for the ether and for others in the room like our chief of staff and our finance director. I just wanted to note one other thing about this. I believe we can find this copy of this plan on the CPC page on the city website or on the Preserve Medford page or both.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, it wasn't my, I didn't know if it was or wasn't.
[Zac Bears]: It's also available, I believe in color on the city council's agenda and meeting minutes portal. If you were to go to the agenda, the item files for 24417, you can find a copy of that PDF there as well. Chair Cameron.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And congratulations, trustee Cameron. Thank you for volunteering for another role.
[Zac Bears]: Vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I would motion Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And I think Sylvia is going to win the award for roll call slips tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70% negative. Thank you very much and this is approved.
[Zac Bears]: 24-421, Ordinance Creating a South Street Historic District. I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body adopt the enclosed ordinance proposed by the Medford Historic District Commission in accordance with the Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 40C, Section 3, Creating a South Street Historic District. A map of the South Street Historic District dated November 9, 2023 is also enclosed. In accordance with the requirements of establishing a historic district, One, an investigation and report was made by the Medford Historic District Commission with the support of a consultant, Skelly Preservation Services, and transmitted to the Community Development Board and the Massachusetts Historical Commission for their respective consideration and recommendations. Both entities have considered and recommend approval of the proposed South Street Historic District, encloses a copy of the Community Development Board recommendation to approve the creation of the South Street Local Historic District, and the Massachusetts Historical Commission discussed the proposed district at their September 13, 2023 meeting, for which they ultimately concluded and incorporated into their minutes that the quote, Massachusetts Historical Commission encourages the City of Medford to establish the South Street Local Historic District. The Medford Historic District Commission held a public hearing on February 8th, 2024, and notices were mailed in accordance to the statute to ordiners as they appear on the real estate tax list. And a final report dated February 20th, 2024, with recommendations by the Medford Historic District Commission is also enclosed. The above ordinance has been reviewed by Attorney Robin Stein at KP Law PC, and the recommended changes have been incorporated. Further, the sufficiency of the vote required by the council would be a two-thirds majority. Medford Historic District Commission Chairperson Christopher Bader will be in attendance to present this proposed ordinance to the council and answer any questions from the council. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Brandon Lingo, current mayor. Chris, thank you for being here. I welcome you to the podium. I think I saw some other members of the commission here for a while. Has anyone stuck it out? Thank you both for sticking it out. You're welcome to join at the podium if you'd like, and we're happy to hear the presentation. If you'd like, I'm also happy to read the proposed changes to the ordinance at some point. You just let me know.
[Zac Bears]: Give me one moment. Actually, give me two moments.
[Zac Bears]: Then I think you need to click play from start. If you scroll up a little bit. You might have to scroll back. If you might have to go down, bring your cursor down and then scroll up. I don't know why it's not showing up. Justin, Matt. We're sending Gen Z. We're sending Gen Z out. Although technically, apparently millennials are better at computers. I don't know. all that time on the smartphones.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Justin.
[Zac Bears]: Last slide, please.
[Zac Bears]: And for those who have not seen Chris zoom in to a public meeting, Chris lives in a historic home where people of my height may occasionally knock their heads on a doorframe.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, George Washington did not choose to cite his headquarters in that home. A joke for me and Larry and Chris. Council, any more questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the Council? I for one, South Street is just one of our most beautiful historic neighborhoods and I've been in the 21 Toro house and I remember the deep concerns with grandfather's house and yeah I mean this is one that just makes sense to me out of the gate. I know a couple years ago we were talking about the one parcel on foster court and I voted for it, didn't pass. But this is contiguous. It's so well evidenced, deeply supported. The process has been so long. I personally would be a strong proponent of approving it for first reading tonight myself. But, you know, I just think this is This is exactly the place we need to go and I mean we see the pit right now on on South Street, next to that 5054. Yeah. And you know, again, I'm a huge proponent of building more housing. But, and I think you brought up the grandfather's house case as well. a little bit of a difference in outward appearance would have made a huge difference in the impact of that new construction on that property. 54 has already gone through, so that as well will not have, but I mean, I think they made some decent considerations and historical commission has had some leverage with the preferably preserved, but this is a neighborhood where, you know, I don't think we got enough necessarily and a neighborhood that really needs it because it is just a major historic quarter with some historic buildings that still have have not been switched to vinyl siding and have not had their main features and historic features just completely stripped and ripped away. So I really see this neighborhood as 100% and this district specifically as constructed as a place to move ahead personally. So thank you for your work on it.
[Zac Bears]: Currently, any further comments from members of the council? We have a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to refer to planning and permitting. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any comments by members of the public on this item? Raise your hands on Zoom or come to the podium and share. So I'm gonna go first to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate your comment. Thank you. I have another comment from Deborah Beard Bader. Damon, address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public? Seeing none, I'll go to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council or the public? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We do have a motion on the floor. We can't have a motion. So we would have to vote that motion or without that motion. And this is an ordinance. I'll just read it really quickly. This would amend sections 4851 and 4852 of the municipal code to include the words fixes what adds to the list and a South Street historic district. twice in section 4851 and once in section 4852, and it also would set forth that the South Street Historic District is and shall hereby be created with the boundaries of the said South Street Historic District being as shown on the map entitled South Street Historic District prepared by the City of Medford Historic District Commission dated November 9th, 2023, a copy of which is on file with the city clerk and is to be recorded at the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds. So that is the vote. Councilor Lazzaro, do you have a further comment?
[Zac Bears]: If you turn your microphone, if these front two microphones are technically in front of the speakers, and I think the speakers are very loud tonight. It's just where I'm sitting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. We have the motion of Councilor Collins to refer to planning and permitting, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Does that motion stand? Motion stands. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion to approve for first reading.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve the ordinance creating a South Street Historic District for first reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. No, no, no, no, no, no, sorry. This is still 4-2-1. Yeah, we just, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion passes to approve for first reading. It meets the two-thirds threshold, and it will go on the, it'll be advertised for second reading in the Medford Transcript and Somerville Journal, and then we will come back before this body for a third reading once that advertising period is complete. Thank you so much. Thank you. 24-425, Community Preservation Committee appropriation request. Let me get my papers in order and we can, oh Lord. Give me a minute here.
[Zac Bears]: I really wish I wasn't. I just need to pull it up online. I do have paper copies of the- I thought I did too, but somehow in my unstapling and random sorting, I've lost it. All right, here we go. Paper 24-425, Community Preservation Committee Appropriation Request. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following recommendations of the Community Preservation Committee. Requesting the appropriation of $20,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Medford Public Schools for the purchase and installation of bicycle repair stations at the McGlynn, Andrews, and Medford High Schools. Requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserves to the Roberts Elementary School PTO for the purchase and installation of a basketball hoop at the Roberts Elementary School, and requesting an appropriation of $5,000 to the Medford Public Schools for the purchase and installation of a Gaga ball pit for the Medford-McGlynn Elementary School. I say that like I'm not a little monster. A gaga ball pit for the McGlynn Elementary School. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letters are attached to the incorporation. Community Preservation Act manager Teresa DuPont and chairperson Roberta Cameron will be in attendance. Peter Cushing and Andrew O'Brien have been invited to speak. I'm sure they're not here at this point. They probably have something else to do. Yeah, and maybe a first time we've heard a little monster in the council chamber. So I will go to you. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Manager DuPont.
[Zac Bears]: Questions on the bicycle infrastructure? Seeing none. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Can you give it in two sentences?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like we're not teaching tough love. So maybe we need to bring that back. The safe dodge ball. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball. I'm just glad it's not like Lady Gaga branded and we're not paying extra for it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I have a motion of Councilor Skidmore to approve, seconded by? Second. Second. Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is on 24425. Yes. She's still with us. Councilor Callahan. Yes. Yes. Oh, there we go.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, then the negative emotion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, and all my papers are a little bit out of order. 24427, appropriation for Medford High School MSBA feasibility study. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your Honorable Body vote as reviewed, the following as reviewed by the Massachusetts School Business Authority, I think I should say School Building Authority, and we may need to correct that. that the City of Medford appropriates the amount of $3 million, $3 million, for the purpose of paying costs for the feasibility study for Medford High School, currently located at 489 Winthrop Street, Medford, Massachusetts, including the payment of all costs, incidental or related thereto, and for which the City of Medford may be eligible for a grant from the Massachusetts School Building Authority, MSBA, and the set amount to be expended under the direction of the Medford Comprehensive High School Building Committee. To meet this appropriation, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, proposes the use of $3 million in free cash. The City of Medford acknowledges that the MSBA's grant program is a non-entitlement discretionary program based on need, as determined by the MSBA, and any costs the City of Medford incurs in excess of the grant approved by and received from the MSBA shall be the sole responsibility of the City of Medford, and that the amount authorized pursuant to this vote shall be reduced by any grant amount set forth in the feasibility study agreement that may be executed between the City of Medford and the MSBA. Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And I will go to the Chief of Staff, for a presentation of the paper.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, whereas chapter 43, section 22 applies to ordinances and their multiple readings, and none of the papers require multiple readings. We're gonna keep moving on this. I have a question to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a written legal opinion I can review? Is there a written legal opinion for review by the chair?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Chapter 43, Section 22 applies to ordinances for multiple readings. General law. I'm reading it right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it reads.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, do you have a written legal opinion for the chair on this matter? I will get you that tomorrow. I limit choice of the discretion of the chairs that I read. I'll read chapter 43, section 22. Any ordinance order or resolution may be passed through all its stages of legislation at one session, provided that no member of the council objects thereto. But if any member of the council objects, the measure shall be postponed for that meeting. Ordinances have multiple stages of legislation, a first reading, a second reading, and a third reading, whereas none of the paper, at least the paper before us, and if your intent is to apply it to 24428, 24432, 24433 and 24434. Well, I'd have to read 24434. That may be an ordinance amendment, but at least the first four are not ordinances. They don't require multiple stages. And therefore the objection doesn't apply and the rule, the law doesn't apply. The law does because if the council would like to provide a legal opinion to the chair, we've done that.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair by councilor Scarpelli. Is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to challenge the ruling of the chair by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. No, it isn't debatable. It's not debatable. I mean, the principle here is absolutely unquestionable.
[Zac Bears]: The motion is not debatable.
[Zac Bears]: No, I think it has plenty of due diligence. There you go, rule 22. The motion's undebatable. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: This is on the motion to overrule the ruling of the chair that chapter 43, section 22 does not apply to this paper as this paper is not an ordinance that requires three readings. Councilor Callahan. We'll go to the next.
[Zac Bears]: Said no. No negative emotion fails the ruling of the chairs that chapter 43 section 22 does not apply to this I would appreciate if you could provide it tonight without legal fighting for transparency and open government
[Zac Bears]: Well, you know, again, there's been no evidence presented.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna maintain business and we're gonna move forward on this item. Oh, so many people are so, so many accusations of shame. So many accusations. Let's move ahead. I would like to continue on this item. Are these questions related to the item before us? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming and Vice President Collins and then Councilor Tseng. Forum is for, required. Thank you. And yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just before we continue, I just want to explain the free cash process. As Councilor Lazzaro was noting, the previous free cash certification was for July 1 of 2022. That was in the amount of $25 million and change. Last week, the Department of the Division of Local Services, I believe, issued a free cash certification for the city as of July 1, 2023. While the free cash amount was not certified, and that amount was $34 million, while that amount had not been certified when the financial task force was having its discussions, we were very aware that the reason for free cash balance amounts and the certification of amounts was due to essentially three factors. One was the use of ARPA funds provided by the federal government instead of free cash in many situations over the past three fiscal years. The second was the conservative estimation of local receipts as part of revenues. I see Councilor Leming. Was the conservative estimation of local receipts. As part of the local revenues, as we heard from our finance director this year, the amount estimated for local receipts for the fiscal 25 budget is at the upper bounds of comfort of what we have submitted, and I'm seeing a smirk and smile. Mr. Dickinson, and it's a fingers crossed. And the third was turned back to open positions, most of which have been filled, there was no expectation whatsoever by anyone familiar with the finances of the city that we will continue to see free cash balance increases of five to $10 million a year. Those are not reliable revenue sources, they're not stable revenue sources, and they are not responsible revenue sources to base our budgets on or to suggest that we have enough funding for Medford Public Schools or for DPW or for a new Medford Fire Headquarters. So those are the facts of free cash. Those are the financial statistics of our community. That is why even though there is a free cash balance certified as of July 1, 2023 for fiscal 24, $34 million that we need the stable recurring revenues as proposed by the mayor and approved by the council for the override votes in November. This is not, free cash is not a solution to those problems. It never has been and it never will be. We also have this amount, which is good, basically thanks to the federal ARPA program. There is a documentation in here outlining the draft free cash plan of the administration, which we can discuss tonight and consider further as a council. It brings us back down very, very quickly with our capital needs to the 10 to $15 million range of free cash reserves recommended by all of the state financial agencies for communities to have I think it's between five and 7% of their annual budget in a reserve and that's where this will bring us so. The federal ARPA program did give us some spending in recent years that we otherwise wouldn't have had. It gave us a little boost to address capital needs. Those capital needs, even if we spent all 34 million on them tomorrow, would not address the massive capital deficit we have for our city facilities, school facilities, roads, sidewalks, water and sewer system, which as we've discussed at numerous meetings of this council, is in the hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second Vice President Collins' motion. Any further discussion on the MSBA feasibility study, or is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion on the floor to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, by Councilor Collins? Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. On the motion to approve this appropriation of $3 million for the MSBA, and is there an amendment to the paper to change business to building? On the motion to approve as amended by Vice President Collins, as seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Discussion members of the public? Can I have an address for the record, please? You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the free cash balance that we have has come from unfilled positions, underestimated revenues, mainly in local receipts. So not really from the property tax and from the use of federal funds. So we're now proposing to use those balances on these one-time expenditures like the feasibility study and the other things outlined in the plan. Your income was more than your expenses, our expenses that we budgeted for we were not able to spend because of things like, for example, 10 police officer positions were unfilled many things. So, and there were many positions unfilled correct so any money that wasn't used then to pay for overtime was turned back. But we still need to budget that money going forward otherwise we'd have to cut 10 police officers or cut those firefighters so for that wasn't that there was an overtaxing, it was that the budget was not able to be spent exactly how was expected in June of the prior year so we, but we still need to spend that money, we took in more money than we expended.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that's what we're trying to do. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Andrew, I'm unmuting you.
[Zac Bears]: You may need to mute your television.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: This is being appropriated from the city's free cash reserve for the one time expense of the school building authority feasibility study.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public. Seeing none in the chamber and no hands on Zoom, on the motion of Vice President Collins, as seconded by Councilor Leming, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. As amended. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: from Mayor Bernalino Kern to fund General Stabilization Establish and Fund Capital Stabilization Funds. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend that Your Honorable Body vote to appropriate free cash in the amount of $6 million into the General Stabilization Fund established earlier this year by Your Honorable Body. As you know, the vast majority of cities and towns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have a General Stabilization Fund. In order to provide for emergencies and unforeseen expenses, a simple majority of the City Council is required to appropriate funds into a stabilization fund. Further, in accordance with Chapter 40, Section 5b of the General Laws, I respect the request and recommend that Your Honorable Body take the following actions, each requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council for establishment. One, establish a capital stabilization fund and vote to approve $5 million of free cash to this fund. Two, establish a water and sewer capital stabilization fund and vote to appropriate $2 million of retained earnings to this fund. As you are aware, free cash and retained earnings are only available after certification through June 30th of each year. Each year without a stabilization fund, the city could face significant challenges in addressing emergencies or capital needs from July 1st until free cash is certified. Chapter 40, section 5B of the general law stipulates that, quote, cities, towns, and districts may create one or more stabilization funds and appropriate any amount to the funds. The Division of Local Services, Financial Management Resource Bureau, Notes in a published article, quote, a city or town's capital assets are a vital part of providing essential services to residents. Capital assets include public buildings and structures, roadways, parks and fields, large equipment like dump trucks, mowers, fire engines, fire breathing apparatus, police cruisers, radio equipment, as well as land acquisitions. Major repairs to a capital asset or when it needs to be replaced unexpectedly or reaches its expected useful life early can be a significant shock to the budget. Additionally, deferred maintenance of capital needs, Existing capital assets is a major contributor to capital failures, as these necessary upkeep costs are sometimes avoided in the interest of balancing the budget. One way to better prepare for capital expenditures, both planned and unexpected, is to establish a special purpose capital stabilization fund dedicated to funding regular required capital repairs and maintenance. In close, please find a draft free cash plan for your review and input. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And in terms of the free cash plan, we have a free cash and retained earnings update. Based on the unaudited balance sheet submitted, this is from the Department of Revenue Division of Local Services, notification of free cash approval. I hereby certify that the amount of available funds for free cash as of July 1 for City of Medford is General Fund $34,241,981, Enterprise Fund Water and Sewer $11,164,741, This certification is in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 59, Section 23 as amended. As per requests to the Council dated June 18, 2024, I am requesting the following funds be appropriated from free cash, $6 million General Stabilization Fund, $5 million Capital Stabilization Fund, $3 million Mass School Building Authority Feasibility Study, for a total of $14 million. The capital stabilization funding mentioned would be a source for fiscal 2024 and prior year capital improvement needs. For the remaining funds, I anticipate the following future appropriation requests. I welcome the Council's input on future appropriation requests before my office and the finance team work to finalize an initial roadmap for the funds. $1 million additional funding to renovate the Hegner Center. 2.5 million fire department fleet replacements, 2 million pension liability, 2 million fiscal year 2025 capital improvements, 2 million fiscal year 2026 capital improvements, $9.5 million. Please note that we do not anticipate future certifications to be as large as the last few years. There are many factors that contribute to the balance in free cash today, including conservative estimating of revenues in pandemic years, vacancies in personnel positions, health insurance budget turnbacks, and the availability of ARPA funds. While best practices still dictate that we should be somewhat conservative on revenue estimates, we push the envelope for fiscal 25 with our finance directors out. We're now able to process personal hires faster than we were able to in the past, and we are not expecting any health insurance turnbacks. Instead, actuals are showing a deficit for fiscal 24, and the ability to appropriate ARPA funds ends December 31, 2024. Finally, as the council may know, the Division of Local Services General Stabilization recommended goal is five to 7% of the current operating budget range. For Medford, five to 7% of the fiscal 25 budget would be 9.47, between 9.47 and 13.26 million. on funds certified for water sewer enterprise. As the council knows, $2 million is proposed for a capital stabilization fund specifically for water and sewer, and the city is presently performing a water system analysis capital plan and rate study, which will help further inform the city in its planning efforts to address the aging water infrastructure across the city. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Reinaldo Kernmayer. So right there, we're talking about $25 million. sorry, $23.5 million of that $34 million going either to stabilization funds or specific projects. There was a request for us to review an input on the free cash plan, so at some point we should discuss how we want to do that. And with that, I will go to Vice President Collins and then Chief of Staff Nazarian. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the, I'm just gonna put it out there. I'm gonna go to the Chief of Staff. We have a B paper to schedule a committee of the whole with the administration to discuss the draft free cash plan. And then Councilor Collins has also made a motion to approve the main paper. Is there a second by Councilor Tseng? A second by Councilor Tseng. I will go to Chief of Staff Nazarian, and then I will go to Councilor Tseng. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chair and staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any other questions. We probably should divide the question on the main paper I have to go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Callahan my apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kelly and Councilor, Chief of Staff Nazarian.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Any further questions or comments on the creation of these stabilization funds and the appropriation of free cash funds to them?
[Zac Bears]: But about in April 22 is 40%. Yes. And that includes towns of 100 and your tollens and your Florida's and your, I suspect, but yes, all 351 cities and towns.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions? Councilor Calhoun?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll take the B paper first. On the B paper by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And there will probably be four votes on this paper.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, yes, the re-paper motion, Councilor Callahan, is that we hold a committee of the whole with the administration to discuss and review the draft free cash plan.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 from everyone absent the motion passes. And then we have the a paper. Is there a request to divide I think we should divide this into three votes, but I can't do that. I guess I could. Councilor Tseng is requested divided into three votes. So the first vote would be to appropriate $6 million in free cash to the General Stabilization Fund. On that motion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is six million to the General Stabilization Fund.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes. Councilor Tseng? President Bears?? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: This is 5 million to establish the Capital Stabilization Fund and appropriate 5 million.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. 6 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion passes. And on the final question, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, to establish a water and sewer capital stabilization fund and vote to appropriate $2 million of retained earnings to this fund. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. And we only have Three more papers to go. This is the water and sewer capital stabilization and the appropriation of $2 million in retained earnings.
[Zac Bears]: We couldn't hear you Councilor Callahan. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent, the motion passes. And we have established these savings accounts, appropriated funds to them. Those funds have not been spent. They just have simply been appropriated to accounts where the city can access them during the period between the start of the next fiscal year and when free cash and retained earnings are certified.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we'll move to 24432, acceptance of shared service statute. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 37M, which would allow the city to share services between municipal departments and the school department. As you'll see in the enclosed statute, the acceptance of the statute requires majority approval of the city council and the school committee. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brandolino Kern, Mayor. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and just from some discussions that I've had, my understanding is one of those areas would be facilities maintenance planning, which we have a need for and issues with across the city historically for decades. And so that's something I have heard talked about, but hopefully further discussion would be happening on that. All right, Councilor Callahan, I see your hand raised. All right, thank you. We will go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to approve the standard service statute by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Seeing none, no hands on Zoom, no one at the podium. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, 424432. Councilor Callahan, is that a yes? We really can't hear you. there might be something issue with your audio.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Cahn, we're unable to hear you. You can just continue with the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion passes. 24435. sorry, 24433, offered by Member Angelico Kern. Fiscal year 2024 year-end transfers. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following end of year transfers for fiscal 24. Transfer two, legislative salaries, 4,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 4,000. Transfer two, finance expenses, 5,000. Transfer from, cable salaries, 5,000. Transfer two, finance salaries, 25,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 25,000. Transfer two, assessor salaries, 14,500. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 14,500. Transfer two, HR salaries, 21,000. Transfer from, contractual agreements, 21,000. Transfer two, information technology salaries. On the motion to waive the rest of the reading. On the motion to waive the rest of the reading by Councilor Leming, seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Seeing as Councilor Keohokalole and I was unable to hear, go for. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes with two absences. The total amount here is, well there's no total at the bottom of this, but essentially these are end-of-year transfers from one account to another account to address minor deficits in those accounts. Madam Chief of Staff or The only very large ones, there's facilities expenses, 200,000 coming from some other sources, workers' comp 200,000 coming from some other sources, and insurance expenses of one million coming from other sources. I believe we have discussed prior to this that the insurance expenses were higher than expected. With that, I will go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council about the end of your transfers? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Second. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming, I just wanted to ask one question, Madam Chief of Staff. My understanding is that from the budget passed for fiscal 25 on June 11th, that the facilities budget for utilities, workers comp, and health insurance were increased given the actuals estimates. That's why those were higher, part of the reason those were higher.
[Zac Bears]: Well, at least we will be able to do that before free cash is certified next year, because we have a stabilization fund. All right, on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming, to approve the fiscal year 24 end of year transfers, 24-433. Yes, and it looks like we do have Councilor Callahan back, so we'll try that again. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We heard you loud and clear.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes 24-434 the end of a long road offered by Mayor Brando-Lingo Kern proposed wage adjustment for non-union personnel. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following amendment to the revised ordinances, Chapter 66, Entitled Personnel, Article II, Entitled Reserve, the City's Classification and Compensation Plan, formally included as Article II, Section 6631-6640, by adopting the following changes. Amendment A, non-union personnel, effective January 1, 2024, increase the base salary of all non-union titles by 1%, effective july 1 2024 increase the base salary of all non-union titles by two percent i further request and recommend that calf 22 the mayor's position being excluded from the cost of living adjustments cola afforded to the non-union personnel between 2021 and 2024 and something less than the general two percent increases be made to calf 2022 such as a mix of 0% and 1% increases. Suggested increases would be 1,120, 0%, 1,121, 1%, 1,122, 1%, 1,123, 1%, 1,124, 0%, 7,124, 1%, there'll be a total of a 4% increase. There has been no increase to the salary for the position of mayor since 7-1-2014 for 10 years. The following is a table of the historical COLA's attributed to CAF 22. And again, this just shows that it went up by 2.5% in 2013, 2% in 2014, and then has not increased since 7-1-2014. Amendment B, the language of CAF 19 shall be amended to include the following position, human resources director. Amendment C, per the council's request, the language of CAF 21 shall be amended to remove the following position, and a new classification of CAF 21.5 be created to include the following position as per the below table, which takes into account the above cost of living increases. Quote, city solicitor, Step one, $138,648.89. Step two, $143,683.59. Step three, $148,901.12. Step four, $154,308.11. Step five, $159,911.99. and 44 cents. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. So let's take these in order. First, we have Amendment A, non-union personnel, effective January 1, an increase of 1% to the base salary, effective July 1, an increase of 2% to the base salary. The mayor has requested that the mayor's position be excluded and that some other amount other than those two amounts be included. I'll go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro. Actually, could we get a presentation from the Chief of Staff before questions? Madam Chief of Staff, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Could we take them one at a time? Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On Amendment A, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins, excuse me, excuse me, thank you. I will call on you when it is my time to call on you and you will wait until I do so. Councilor Lazzaro, after I just reviewed the motion, there's a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to approve Amendment A while excluding CAF 22. Vice President, sorry, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: So are you excluding, I'm confused by what you're saying.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, everything below the 2% bullet point is not part of this.
[Zac Bears]: This amendment.
[Zac Bears]: would not be applied. All of this amendment does is proposes non-union personnel to get 1% on January 1, 2024 and 2% on July 1, 2024. Okay. And then the mayor has asked if we want to include some amount for the mayor. If we exclude CAF 22, then they're excluded from those two races.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: You want to include 1-121, 1-122, 1-123, and seven. You want to include the mayor's cap 22 in in January one in July one.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So you want to approve amendment a with no exclusion of the mayor. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions? We have a motion on the floor from Vice President Collins to approve with no exclusions. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Seeing no further questions, I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment from members of the public on this matter? Seeing none, there's a motion on the floor by Vice President Collins to approve with no exclusions. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. So for amendment A, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is 24 434 Amendment A. No. So no. Yes. Yes. yes yes for the affirmative to the negative one absent the motion passes amendment be the language of cap 19 shall be amended to include the following position human resources director chief of staff Nazari
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council on the addition of the human resources director to CAF 19? Vice President on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Vice President Collins. Any questions members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. This is 24434 amendment B. Yes, this is amendment B. Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. We now have paper two, three, four, three, four, two, four, four, three, four, amendment C. Per the council's request, the language of CAF 21 shall be amended to remove the following position and a new classification of CAF 21.5 be created to include the following position as per the below table, which takes into account the above cost of living increases. I've already read this, but this is essentially creating a CAF 21.5 to increase the salary for the city solicitor. I believe this was budgeted for in fiscal 25 budget. Any questions or discussion on this motion? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve paper 24.434 amendment C, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Madam clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes. 24436 complete public participation is done on the motion of Councilors saying to adjourn seconded by Council is our own. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned
[Zac Bears]: Special meeting, Medford City Council, June 12th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Five present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise. Oh, I'm present. Five present, two absent. Meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. 24-408 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Regarding workers' compensation settlement, dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend your honorable body enter executive session pursuant to general law chapter 30A section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning a workers' compensation settlement with Michael Nestor. I also recommend that the council's agenda state in the executive session notice that the votes may be taken. Attorney Brian Mazur will be present on June 12th, 2024 to provide the council with guidance on this matter. Thank you for your kind attention to this request. Sincerely, Brianne Algo-Kern, Mayor. This is our only item for the night. Is there a motion to Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to enter Executive Session. Can we amend that to be pursuant to General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21A.3 and note that votes may be taken and note that we may adjourn in Executive Session. So moved. On the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Gallihan, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, none in the negative, two absent. Motion passes. We're entering executive session. I'm gonna create a breakout room. Attorney Mazer, I will invite you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The only thing, and maybe we can talk about it more on the 26th, that I think would be good to at least start talking about is the, and it's kind of in here as the new topics, but the work plan, kind of the two tracks of the work plan that we talked about recently, where we'd have kind of the global citywide changes on one track and then changes that are going to require different local neighborhood discussions or essentially the district by district and neighborhood type changes on another track and hopefully kind of try to have that out there well in advance so the residents can be informed and know when we're going to be talking about their neighborhood as it relates to the comp plan and all the other changes we want to make. just that I think maybe we can take that to the 26. Maybe it's like a natural next step from this final topic here on our agenda today.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just had one, I think this is great. I just had one quick change from the Climate Adaptation Action Plan. I just think that BE 1.1 should probably be like an HP or maybe HPHA instead of in CR, but the rest of that did seem to be climate. At least that's how I read BE 1.1.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think H-P as well. But I hear what you're saying. I think adding to the list makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The rest of the CAAP, you know, recommendations seem pretty solidly in the climate resiliency bucket to me. Well, now we get back down to the accessible neighborhoods and maybe I'm, yeah, I can see something that could have some overlap there as well. But I like the idea of going through, I don't know, Maybe, maybe we could go through the bolded ones like the, with just the one point, you know, without the sub letters and maybe we could prioritize those first.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it might also be useful to both of your points to look at this. I mean, I think we can do what you just said and kind of go through this and put some general priorities down, but I think it might actually be useful to, instead of have like almost a turn the table, like instead of having the numbers and headers from the plans be like the defining column, but to have the topics be the column, and then we could split it out into goals and actions grouped within the topic. I mean, I think we're kind of doing it just as like, if this was a spreadsheet, I would just move a column and then sort it differently. Right. Um, so, and I think it might, like, it might be useful for us to take, like, I generally think that most of the things in bold here are goal statements and most of the sub headers are like different possible actions that could happen within each topic. I think it might be useful for us to have a table, like take the goals that are under each topic and kind of come up with what you just said, Alicia, like a general goal statement for each topic area. I think these are a great starting point. We probably would narrow them down a little bit so we don't have like a nine bullet point kind of necessarily goal statement. And then have the specific recommended strategies in there as well. And then I think the other piece of this, like to Alicia's point, like I think there's two things we can do here, right? Like One is, there's one track of this that's like, we want to look at all of our district and our map, and we want to talk about what uses we want and what places, what dimensional requirements we want in which places, and essentially what we want neighborhoods, corridors, and squares to look like across the city. And then there's what are things that we want to be happening in all of those districts for all of the new construction, right? Like we, like some of the, um, climate resiliency type stuff, like we're going to want new construction generally. And maybe it's not in all of them because I don't, I don't know how the building code interacts with quite frankly, that's a piece of it. I have a lot less, uh, understanding of, but, um, general guidelines that we would want to apply to the entire city. And to me, it's, um, it's the climate resiliency and the housing affordability and the, to an extent, the economic development and business growth and the transportation and multimodal ways like those seem to me to be more like we want complete streets everywhere. We want net zero construction everywhere. We want, um, you know, more housing affordability everywhere we want more business growth in all parts of the city and what are policies that can do that. And then that's one track of things. Then there's a track of things that is, this is kind of the specific like form, um, of, you know, the shape and size of structures and the vision of lots and like what, um, and the heights and densities in different parts of the city, um, and redrawing the boundaries and barriers of, uh, of the zoning district. So, um, that just to me, I think is a good, a way that I could think about this a little more clearly. And I think to like, just taking that, maybe taking these, all of these topics and putting them into those two buckets and then taking kind of resorting this, um, list of recommendations from the climate and comprehensive plans. to have be like shorter tables under each topic area could be a way of organizing it. Um, but I also think we could go through today and at least talk about prioritizing some of these, but again, it, yeah, like I, my top priority is reducing zoning barriers to multifamily and mixed use housing development. And then also probably something in the, uh, you know, not necessarily undertaking corridor and commercial center studies, but allowing an appropriate mix of uses and land controls for cohesive development along corridors and within squares. Like those are my two big ones.
[Zac Bears]: It's the microphone. It's not you. I know.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little box up there, a little cardboard box. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: this is really helpful, this table.
[Zac Bears]: Could we take a look at the kind of more simplified tables that Paula just said? Yeah, great. Because I think it might be better to like go through those than to go through each of the, I think that sounds like what you were saying, Paula, if I heard you right.
[Zac Bears]: I was following up until the kind of timing element of it. Are you saying that a number would mean a time?
[Zac Bears]: Like a five would mean three months, a four would mean six months or something like that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, that's okay. Is the, what is, it's called a Miro page. Is that what I saw, Paula?
[Zac Bears]: Is that able, like, could that be shared? Could we edit that separately? I think it would be worth it personally. I mean, I understand that people don't want to do it this way, but I could, I think we could spend five minutes and each of us pick a row and, you know, you guys can pick a row. We can pick a row and we can just move them now and then we don't have to wait. And then we can talk about why things are where they are for 10 minutes. Cause I just worry if we do it asynchronously, It's, there's no collective time for us to interpret it until the next time we want to talk about it, which is when we want it to be done. Sure. So yeah, I know it's kind of fast, but I feel like I could do it.
[Zac Bears]: I'm very much on the other side of that. I thought we could take the top level topics.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, I felt very comfortable doing that. It's not to say that they're not, I think this is about importance in terms of timing, right? That's what I'm hearing.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what this is. Examples of rating strategies section is great. It takes similarly grouped things from multiple plans, says which topics they're in, if you could scroll down a little bit, and then kind of says, okay, there's like seven strategies, it falls under six topics, that's a five. And then if you scroll down to the next one, it's like, yeah, we want Medford to be, we want to mitigate heat islands, right? There's three strategies, it's only climate resiliency. So it addresses that conflict question, right? That first topic, that's across six of our topic areas. We need to talk about that discreetly because if we talk about it by topic area, it's not gonna be useful. It sounded to me like Paola was saying, if we could kind of just as a general thing, take these top goals, that that would provide them input as they go through these strategies to help inform what they think of as basically creating these little strategy summaries for each thing. And I think that, to me, that's valuable. It's not saying this is more important than the other. It's saying You know, to me, it's easy for me to say, okay, I think all of them are important. I'd like to do all of them. There are some of them that I would call a five and some of them I would call a two. Heat islands, I care about them. Do I think it's as urgent as the fact that nobody can live here? No. So calling housing affordability a five and calling heat islands a two, which is what it is in here. I'm just saying that as an example. But it sounds like the two options are we could either give a little bit of input now to help guide, or they could just do it themselves, and then we can come back with our changes later. And to me, it seems valuable. I mean, at this point, it's eight o'clock, maybe we should just not do it. We should just say, go ahead, Ines, and come up with it. But that seemed to me to be where we were. It took me a minute, but that does seem to be a valuable exercise to me to take five minutes and say, this goal is a five, this goal is a three, this goal is a two, and hopefully that informs the work plan more than just having them develop it themselves without that kind of something to guide them. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, if Paola could just send that table that's in that document that you were just on, Paola, I can send it back with, I can just fill the whole thing out and send it back.
[Zac Bears]: If you email it now, I can send it back to you in five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just that little table that you were just on in the prioritization of strategies.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sure Jimmy can move the. What was that? I'm sure Jimmy can move the sticky notes around by my next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: I was just wondering, are we going to be able to see these different layers on top of each other and be able to have just two layers on at a time or one? Or how exactly is that going to work?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. The other one I have a question about is the encouraged balanced growth. Is that a balance of commercial and residential?
[Zac Bears]: So that's like the economic development one. Okay. Then yeah, it would be for me the affordable housing and for all the growth, balanced growth and coordinating mobility and development. And I think Yeah, outside of that, I'll leave it at those three. But if I was to pick a fourth, I'd probably pick Achieve and Evolve, the 2022 Climate Action Plan. I feel like buildings and energy, I mean, I'm sure there's more we can do, but I just think also, it seems to me that the new building code that we've adopted also just mandates a lot of new stuff. So it's like, how much further do we wanna go down that road first?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's why I wanna take the two track. Like I think it, and I was even saying in our meeting, like one meeting a month on these global questions, one meeting a month on like specific areas, and then we can take the, most urgent corridors, I agree with those two being primary ones sooner than later. Hopefully if we can put out something in July, we can do, you know, Mystic Ave in September, Salem Street in October, then we can go to the other squares and corridors. And similarly, so we could start looking at the, you know, some of the global housing affordability and economic development type things earlier in the fall. I think the one question at the end of that is like, when do we come up with the coherent, you know, map? So, and does that, is that map end up being the product of a number of changes or not? That's an open question to me. But other than that, like, that's kind of why I would like to see us go in that direction. Because I mean, each month, this group can have one meeting to talk about each of those two tracks and hopefully outpace some of the stuff you're talking about.
[Zac Bears]: I think it might be also useful for us at some point to maybe it's not on the 26. Maybe it's in a July or August meeting to have the break out the neighborhood squaring quarters topic into the actual neighborhood squares and corridors and like prioritize physical areas of the city. I think the mapping analysis will help a lot with that, which is I suggest maybe for July or August.
[Zac Bears]: And we might have to put some lines around some neighborhoods. People might have to deal.
[Zac Bears]: We could potentially do an hour on Tuesday night And meeting on Wednesday night, if you guys, I know that, I know, cause I said it wrong last night, you're on the 26th and the 27th are the CD and ZBA. I think right now we have six to seven on the 25th before our regular meeting, if we, so maybe we can just consider that over the next two weeks. I mean, I don't wanna, it's obviously up to everybody being available at that time, but in our council schedule, it is available.
[Zac Bears]: 12th regular meeting, June 11th, 2024 Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag.
[Zac Bears]: 24405 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and Lucy Lemme. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and Lucy Lemme on their 70th wedding anniversary. They were married on June 13th, 1954. Mr. Lemme was born in South Medford and has lived in Medford all his life and attended and graduated from Medford High School. He served in the Korean War and then returned to Medford and married his beautiful wife, Lucy, where they raised their family, Alexander, Josie, Janet, and Paul Lemme. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. 24-409 offered by Council President Bears. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Medford High School Class of 2024 on their graduation and send them our best wishes as they begin their next adventure. We just had graduation last week for the Medford High School class of 2024, and I'm going to recognize Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? I wanna send my congratulations as well. Very impressive group of students, regardless of what they may be doing after. I just hope that they will contribute some of their great success to our community. On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion passes to 24-411 congratulations to the organizers of Medford porchfest 2024, it was all by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the volunteer organizers hosts and attendees at Medford fortress 2024 on an incredible day of music and community building. We had Medford Porch Fest recently. It was an incredible success. We saw, I think, over a hundred locations hosting music. I managed to get to three of them, and it was just a really wonderful day for our city to see so many people coming together and out in the streets and just making a great show of Medford's arts, culture, and community. Any further discussion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of the Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan, all those in favor, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. Negative. The motion passes records. The records of the meeting of May 28th, 2024 were passed to Councilor. Let me Councilor. Let me, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: Are there any discussion on the records? on the motion of council. Let me do approve. Seconded by Council is R. O. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 affirmative. None of the negative. The motion passes and the records are approved. Reports of committees 23449 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, June 5th, 2024, report to follow. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: petition for a grant of location, National Grid Inc. of North Andover, Massachusetts, Medford, Massachusetts City Clerk's Office. You are hereby notified that by order of the Medford City Council, a public hearing will be held in the Howard F. Alderman Memorial Chambers and by Zoom at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 11th, 2024, on a petition filed by the Massachusetts Electric Company, DBA, National Grid, and Verizon New England, Incorporated, to add one additional joint owned pole located at 171 Park Street, Medford, MA 02155, and permission to locate the wires including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures along and across Park Street. National Grid is petitioning to install a new 40-foot Class 3 wood pole at 171 Park Street in order to install a new 50 kilovolt amp transformer to offload existing overloaded transformers on Park Street. A new Zoom link for this meeting will be provided not later than Friday, June 7, 2024. The petition has been filed in accordance with the plan marked National Grid Plan Number WR30955. 090 Park Street, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, March 28, 2024. Wherefore, I praise that after due notice and hearing as provided by law, it be granted a location for and permission to erect and maintain poles and wires together with such sustaining and protecting fixtures as it may find necessary. Said poles to be erected substantially in accordance with the plan filed here with Mark Park Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Also for permission to lay and maintain underground laterals, cables, and wires in the above or intersecting public ways for the purpose of making connections with such poles and buildings. as each of said petitioners may desire for distributing purposes. Approved by the superintendent of wires approved chief engineer with the following conditions. The grant of location is limited to one additional joint owned utility pole located within the sidewalk between 179 and 171 park street labeled P three nine zero nine one dash one two. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify dig safe and obtain all applicable right of way permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a public right of way occupancy PRO permit pursuant to section 74 dash one for one of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. Three, no other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. National Grid shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. Four, placement of the joint owned utility pole must provide at least 36 inch clearance of accessible travel path around the structure in accordance with ADA regulations and city standards. Five, the cement concrete sidewalk restoration shall be done at the time of installation and in consultation with the engineering division per the requirements of an approved PRO permit. Any concrete sidewalk damage during this work must be replaced in kind and cleanly cut at the control joints. Temporary patching using bituminous concrete pavement will not be permitted. The sidewalk restoration of the temporary patch located at utility risers on P3092 must also be restored during this time in accordance with old petitions that were granted by the city. The project site must be swept after installation or daily and shall be kept free of debris for the duration of the installation. Park Street is a very narrow, heavily traveled roadway and requires a mandatory police detail to perform this work. The engineering division recommends that the applicant consult with the Medford Police Department traffic sergeants prior to scheduling this work since work hours may be restricted to outside normal operations. Nine, at least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, National Grid must coordinate a better communications with the director of communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public, signed Adam L. Hurtubise. Do we have a representative of National Grid in person or on Zoom? Thank you for being here. Name and address for the record, please. And if you could just describe the project and give us any information, and then we can open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Do we have the city engineer available to discuss the conditions? We do have the recommendation of the city engineer with the conditions, but I did want to give him a check in a second. Do we have any questions from councilors for the petitioner before we open the public hearing? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Any further questions for the petitioner? Seeing that, I just wanted to note for the scheduling purposes, the condition of coordinating with the police department traffic sergeants. And I did have one question on the sidewalk restoration of the temporary patch located at the utility risers on P3092. Could you go into that anymore? It is a required condition of the project. Oh, was that another patch that was right next to the- I think it would be nearby, but it seems like it has the temporary is still there and it needs to be permanently filled.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. At this time, I'm going to declare a public hearing open for anyone in favor, in opposition, or who otherwise has questions about this project. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor of the project?
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or who otherwise has questions about this project? Seeing none in the room, I'm going to check Zoom. I have one question here. I'm going to recognize Klein 170-172. Please state your name and address for the record after I request to unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any response to the question about whether this is going to serve as a Park Street or other streets?
[Zac Bears]: Is there any intent to run wires across the street to the other side of the street to service properties on Salem Street?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Mr. Klein, I think that's a different pole and a different company. It sounds like as well. It sounds like that.
[Zac Bears]: It's all national grid.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Let's just interpreting what you said. I have the petitioner here saying they do not intend to run wires across the street onto your property.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to ask the administration, the city administration, the chief of staff, do you know if the chief engineer, the city engineer is available at some point to answer this question?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. I didn't see Tim, but I see him now. Commissioner McGibbon, could you raise your hand if you can comment on this or if you think there is a condition that we can put in on this?
[Zac Bears]: I didn't see Tim. I'm gonna unmute you when the audio is off, Tim. Thank you. You can give me a thumbs up.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, we hear you. Thanks, Tim. Recognize Commissioner McIver and DPW.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. There is a petition. Mr. Klein, if you want to rephrase the question.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. And thank you, Mr. Klein. Any further comments in the public hearing on this grant of location? Seeing none, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of vice president Collins to approve pending the six day public comment period and adopting the conditions of the city engineer seconded by vice by councilor Kelly and Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative negative. The motion passes and the grand application is approved. Thank you. 24367 public hearing proposed amendments the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 public hearing notices Medford City Council June 11 2024. The Medford City Council, a subsequent public hearing. The Medford City Council shall conduct a public hearing on June 11, 2024 at 7 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall. 85 George P. Hassett Drive and via Zoom, a link to the public hearing will be presented no later than June 7th, 2024 on the following proposed amendments to the City of Medford zoning ordinance. One, amending the format of the table of use and parking regulations to replace the parking and loading code columns with specific parking and loading requirements. Two, amending section 94-12 definitions to add new defined terms and revise existing definitions. 3. Adopt a new GIS-based digital zoning map. Adoption of the new map format is not intended to result in any material changes to zoning of any parcels within the City, but is intended to confirm the best information available to the City regarding the existing zoning designation for all properties in the City. Amending sections 94-1.4 94-6.4.3 subsection 2, 94-11.7.2 subsection 4 and 94-12 to exempt municipal uses from certain use parking and directional dimensional requirements. The full materials for the amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk, city hall room 103, or on the city's website at www.medfordma.org, slash department, slash planning, dash development, dash sustainability, by clicking on current CD board filings. If you need reasonable accommodation to attend, participate in either meeting, please contact Francis Nwaje, telephone 781-393-2439, or email fnwaje at medford-ma.gov, per order, Adam Hurtubise, city clerk. would recognize vice president Collins, the chair of the planning and permitting committee.
[Zac Bears]: I think we do have to open a public hearing. First, I will recognize the Director of Planning and Development Sustainability, Alicia Hunt. And I do want to also just note that the Community Development Board did have one recommendation. There was a motion to recommend that the approval of the zoning amendments with the edit to move the number four superscript for the footnotes from the leftmost column to the parking column. And I will recognize Director Hunt.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt and Planner Evans for being here. This time I'm going to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed, or who has other questions about this item. Public hearing is open. Director Hunt, did I hear that you were in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Is there anyone else in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to speak in the public hearing on these proposed amendments? Seeing none in person, I will review Zoom. Seeing none, this portion of the public hearing is closed. There was a motion from Vice President Collins to approve. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that would be good.
[Zac Bears]: Second. On the motion to approve with adopting the recommendation of the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 24-406 petition for a common victor's license, Dave's Hot Chicken, CQ Chicken, Medford LLC. On file, we have business certificate, the petition, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, and it's been approved by treasurer, collector, building department, fire department, Police Department and Health Department has approved pending inspection. Is there a representative from Dave's Hot Chicken or CQ Chicken Medford present? If you could raise your hand on Zoom or stand in the chamber. And I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli, Chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs. I'm not seeing, oh, here we go. We do have a representative, but I'll recognize you first, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to recognize Al Graziano, DHC, Dave's Hot Chicken. If you would like to share anything else about your petition, and then we'll hear from questions from councilors. Please give us an address for the report, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do you have anything you'd like to share about your petition?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions from members of the council? Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes, I have an affirmative, none a negative. The motion is approved. 24371, and then I'll recognize Councilor Collins. 24371 has been withdrawn by Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 24-415, 24-045, 24-410, 24-413, and 24-414 and join those for consideration and suspension of Rule 21, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're voting on a motion.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. We have five papers that have been joined for consideration. I will read those papers, and then we will hear a presentation from the mayor, and then we will hear questions from Councilors, and then we will hear public comment. The five papers that were just joined for consideration are 24-045, offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, fiscal year 2025 budget submission. dear president Bears and members of the city council pursuant to mass general law chapter 44 section 32. I respectfully request and recommend the city council approve the proposed fiscal year 2025 general fund budget as amended and water and sewer enterprise fund budget. Total submitted appropriation for all departments, including schools is 218,000,089. Account details are included within the budget presentation, which is available online at medfordma.org. Department, assessor, 2025 salaries, 432,856. 2025 ordinary, 156,927. Total request, $589,783. Legislative, total request, $312,689. Executive, total request, $673,270. Finance, total request, $854,314. Treasury, total request, $757,494. Law, total request, $530,036. Information technology, total request, $357,366. Clerk, total request, $406,364. Elections, total request, $327,435. Licensing commission, total request, $5,800. Conservation commission, total request, $7,500. Planning development and sustainability, total request, $819,207. Community Development Board total request $9,200. Board of Appeals total request $12,500. Historic District Commission total request $5,000. Historical Commission total request $35,000. Cable total request $208,424. Formal commission total request $5,400. Bicycle commission total request $1,500. Building department total request $1,031,543. Electrical total request $678,805. Facilities total request $1,838,745. Police total request $14,632,850. $1,263. Traffic supervisors total request $361,525. Traffic commission total request $30,500. Fire department total request $15,126,017. Civil defense total request $9,840. Parking department total request $951,741. Recreation Department $607,787. Medford Public Library total request $2,247,934. Chevalier total request $32,000. DPW Highway totaling $12,502,223. That includes the trash contract. DPW Cemetery totaling $1,118,050. DPW parks totaling $957,577. DPW engineering totaling $547,752. DPW forestry totaling $623,989. Health totaling $810,978. Council on aging totaling $277,157. human resources totaling $269,480, diversity equity inclusion totaling $118,502, veterans totaling $444,361, contractual agreements totaling $1,500,000, salary compensation study totaling $75,000, Workers' compensation totaling $788,000. Insurance totaling $28,274,939. Pensions totaling $16,281,536. Bonds and interest totaling $5,351,319. and education totaling $76 million for a total of $189,407,845 in the general fund. To meet these appropriations, the sum of $188,875,622.64 be raised and appropriated from the fiscal year 2025 tax levy and other general revenues of the city. that $75,700 be transferred from the sale of cemetery lots, that $239,115.65 be transferred from cemetery perpetual care funds, and $217,406.71 be transferred from casino mitigation funds. for the water and sewer enterprise fund. Water and sewer budget total request $26,937,511. Water sewer bonds and interest $1,743,644 for a total water sewer enterprise fund budget of $28,681,155. Further, that $28,681,155.00 be funded by anticipated revenue of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Mayor Brianne Lungo-Koehn. So that's the budget. We have had seven budget meetings so far with the city departments, with our schools over the past several months. You can find the records of those meetings online and the discussions that we've had so far. I'm going to read the other three papers now. 24410, dear President Bears and members of the city council, in addition to a $76 million general fund appropriation for the school department, which I have submitted within the fiscal 25 budget, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body appropriate an additional $1,007,500.00 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the fiscal 25 budget to stabilize the school department budget. These two appropriations, if approved, provide the school department with $77,750,000 to operate the Medford Public Schools in fiscal 25. Further resources could be directed to the school department in fiscal 25 and beyond if the city council votes to place an override question on the November biennial state election ballot and voters approve such a measure. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. 24-413 proposition two and a half debt exclusion order and ballot question for fire headquarters. Ordered that the city pursuant to general law chapter 59 section 21 C subsection K shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024 to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to general law chapter 59 section 21 C. for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or certificates of indebtedness issued by the city to pay the cost of designing the project, equipping and furnishing the project, site improvements, and all other costs for a new fire station headquarters, and that toward that end, the elections department is hereby directed to notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the within vote of the city council to place the following question on the ballot for use by the city at the November 5 2024 biennial state election the question would read as follows shall the city of Medford be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one half so-called the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay the cost of constructing a new fire station headquarters to be located at 120 main street in Medford Massachusetts including the payment of all costs related to designing the project, equipping and furnishing the project, site improvements, and all other costs incidental and related thereto, yes or no. 24-414, proposition two and one half override order and ballot question for schools and DPW, order that the city pursuant to general law chapter 59, section 21C, subsection G, shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024, to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to general law section 21c for the general operation of Medford public schools and department of public works and toward that end that the elections department is hereby directed to notify the secretary of the commonwealth of the within vote of the city council to place the following on the ballot for use by the city at the November 5th, 2024 biennial state election. Shall the city of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $3,500,000 in real estate personal property taxes for the fiscal 2025 general operations of Medford Public Schools, $3 million, including but not limited to funding costs of teachers, literacy coaches, behavior specialists, administrative assistants, and nurse physicians, and for regular facilities maintenance. and for FY 2025 general operations of the Department of Public Works, 500,000, including but not limited to additional staff for road and sidewalk infrastructure repair for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, yes or no? The final paper is 24-415, proposition two and a half override order and ballot question to invest in future of Medford public schools, ordered that the city pursuant to general law chapter 5921C, subsection G, shall seek voter approval at the biennial state election to be held on November 5th, 2024, to assess taxes in excess of the amount allowed pursuant to General Law Chapter 5921C for the general operation of the Medford Public Schools, and that toward that end, the Elections Department is hereby directed to notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the within vote of the City Council to place the following question on the ballot for use by the City at the November 5, 2024 biennial state election. Shall the City of Medford be allowed to assess an additional $4 million in real estate and personal property taxes for fiscal year 2025 general operations of the Medford Public Schools to create a high school schedule that increases access to arts and vocational programming, expands classroom instructional opportunities, and for classroom teacher and paraprofessional compensation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. Yes or no? Thank you for bearing with me as I read all of those papers. I am now going to recognize the Mayor of the City of Medford, Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. We're going to go to questions from councilors. I am just going to say before that, I just wanted to return the thanks to you for your collaboration, establishing the budget ordinance, getting started on this process so early, having had all of our meetings happen before this meeting and not after this meeting. I think we've really opened a new era in an open process where we can have those questions and have the council be a part, a collaborative part of the budget process. So I just want to thank you for that. It's been a great few months, some long meetings, but a great few months. I'm going to recognize Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. As noted by Councilor Scarpelli, there was a motion to suspend the rules to take these papers and to suspend rule 21. Madam mayor, your response.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you mayor. Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan, Councilor Leming, Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Almost done. Almost done. We have two more hands raised. I'm going to councilor Scarpelli and then vice president Collins. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Just recognizing you, if you'd like to speak. I apologize.
[Zac Bears]: Please share your comments to the chair. I'm gonna go to Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Leming and then I do have one question.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: One of the other benefits of streaming on YouTube is it's a lot easier to fast forward through the meeting. So if anyone wants to watch it later. My one question, and I hate to derail a wonderful dialogue and narrative, it's actually about the law department budget. And I just wanted to say, A, that I'm thankful to see the increase in the salary for the city solicitor position. I'm hopeful that with that competitive number, we'll finally be able to bring someone on. I know that position has been vacant for a while. The only other thing, it's kind of a question, feel free to respond to my comment, and it'll be the only one I make from the chair on this paper. Two years ago, we did agree to include an assistant city solicitor position in the budget that has been removed for this budget. We had a discussion with the chief of staff about it, and I understand the position, the difficulties, that money being essentially right now used to help to address the fiscal crisis that we're in in our schools. So I understand that. But regardless of our philosophical, potential philosophical difference on that, I do want to say that that is important to me, that the council has voiced that to be an important position and I am hopeful. if this package does move forward, that we can have further discussions, hopefully with a city solicitor hired at this new rate about potentially restoring that position in the future. So I just wanted to put that on record as that is something that we have talked about two budgets ago and is important and this council has raised as an issue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. All right. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, we're going to go into public comment. People who would like to speak for public comment may line up at the podium here. They may raise their hand on Zoom. The mad rush begins. And we are going to be following the public comment rules laid out by the council. We will have three minutes for the first two hours of public comment. After two hours, we will go for one further minute. Sure, if they need to get home, that's all right. If we have a student here, someone who needs to get home, it is a school night, so we'll make a school night exception. But it'll be three minutes for each speaker for the first two hours, followed by one more minute. After two hours, we'll go to one minute. So please keep your comments as brief as you can. I will put a timer up on the board, but first we'll recognize our young person here. Welcome, thank you for being before us. If you could just say your name and then give your comment. Thank you so much for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Simon. All right, we'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please, and then I will alternate with Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom and then I'll come back to the podium. I'm going to recognize Chris Bennett on Zoom. Chris, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll just say two things. There's, I believe about 12,000 properties, residential properties in the city that are owner occupied. And the city council has not received a pay increase since 2016. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Jess H on Zoom. Jess, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: The tax exemptions that the state allows the city to charge and the override are separate issues. The city does have the maximum tax exemption for seniors, veterans, and the blind that is allowed by state law.
[Zac Bears]: It will apply the same way that the property tax applies to everybody.
[Zac Bears]: That's not legally allowed under state law.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Sharon Diesso on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, Sharon. You have three minutes. Sharon, I'm going to unmute you now. You need to accept my request.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Sharon. I'm going to go to Councilor Callahan. I just also want to note the school committee did not vote themselves to raise this council considered an adjustment of their compensation after 24 years of no increase. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Kanye. In addition to the exemptions, there's the deferral program, and there's also a senior tax work off program where some seniors come to City Hall and help out and have some of their taxes reduced. Go to the podium, name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Jen on Zoom. Jen, I'm going to unmute you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Going to go to the podium, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. Bob Jones, Menford Fire Union Local 1032. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Jones, we don't have public minutes. They were not public meetings.
[Zac Bears]: The press releases issued by the financial task force contain a summary of the decisions that we made and the discussions that we had in those meetings, and they are available to the public on the city website.
[Zac Bears]: That is in the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: It has the amount that he has budgeted for those. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: You can look available for prior years as well.
[Zac Bears]: I'll give you 30 more seconds, but just to answer the question, if you go on the city website and you go under mayor's office, the menu, there's a city budget page, and the city budget is there. And one thing we did request this year was to have an additional year of the actuals included, and the administration said that they did include that. There's a budget book available on the city website. And I'll give you an extra 30 seconds to answer.
[Zac Bears]: My understanding is that the owner's project manager for the fire station is finalizing the design. The debt exclusion vote authorizes the city to bond an amount up to the amount necessary, um, determined by the design. So, um, it is still being finalized. Uh, the financial task force estimated the highest amount of the bond would be about $30 million. Um, but I do know that there's still design considerations ongoing.
[Zac Bears]: Those were part of the press release. The total of all three is an estimate of $446 a year or about $42 per month.
[Zac Bears]: For the average single family home. Single family home.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gannon. I can't speak for the school committee, I do see some school committee members here. I do know that the school committee has had to wait to schedule their budget meeting until we have an allocation before us and approved it. And my understanding of the 77.75 million, it's not the 79.4 requested by the school committee. But my understanding is that the intent is that if the overrides were to pass, then there could be supplemental appropriation recommended by the school committee to the council. And the override questions also would become active this fiscal year. So essentially, there's money for the first two quarters of the year and there potentially will be more money after that. That's just my understanding. I'm again, not on the school committee, but just to allay some of those fears beyond that, I do not know when the school committee is going to schedule their meeting or release a budget. But I do know that they had to wait for us to approve an allocation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Ken on Zoom. Ken, I'm gonna unmute you, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Munir on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: To the podium, School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Graham, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to the podium, and then I'll come back to Zoom, and then the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Zoom, Jean Zotter. Jean, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jean. going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. You're over your time. Thank you. Gaston, thank you. You're over your time. You're over your time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Sir, I do not think you're benefiting your position by disrupting a public meeting and screaming at the public. I do not think you convince anyone with your outburst. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to apologize to everyone. Sam, if we could, there's just some noise and the kind of a tantrum in the rotunda. Sure. I'll give you an extra 15 seconds. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Zoom. I have Barry Ingber on Zoom. Barry, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. And if you could just let me know, this means I don't have to read your comment.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Derek Anderson on Zoom, then I'll come back to the podium. Derek, you have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Go to the podium, name and address the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would ask if you're going to have private conversations in the chamber, please take private conversations out into the rotunda so we don't disrupt people and so we can hear everyone equally. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Staying at the podium, we'll go to school committee member Aaron Olapade. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes, but I'm gonna give it to you starting now, because I'm still scared.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's just how many properties there are.
[Zac Bears]: We're over time, thank you. I can say a couple things on development and on Tufts University. We don't have the authority to stop Tufts University in many ways from doing what they do. They have exemptions that they, quite frankly, bought and paid for under the state law. Which one, sorry? The church, the church purchased that building. That's Vida Real is a church, so they purchased the building. We are working very hard on commercial and economic development. It is for profit, I believe. Thank you. I'm going to have to move us on to another speaker. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. Thank you. That actually used to be nonprofit and is now for profit and is taxed. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. and address the record. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I've let you go. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I just want to respond quickly to that comment and I appreciate bringing it up. Part of this is about adding staff and DPW to address kind of the problem Anna was talking about earlier, trying to keep those B, C, and D roads from getting to an F grade where it costs that huge risk amount. And we are also working on, the administration is working on a comprehensive assessment on the water sewer system to assess the full cost of what it would take to bring us to a state of good repair. And we do have some reports on roads and sidewalks as well. where we will have to do more work on that. But yeah, the infrastructure is huge. And one of the other huge outstanding pieces is the fire headquarters being probably one of the two biggest facilities capital needs on the infrastructure side. So it is definitely, this whole package is probably 70% schools, 30% infrastructure, more work to come on that. Thank you for the comment. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I will say, I just want to thank you for the comment. And one thing this council has been doing is at the very least asking our state government to give cities and towns more authority or to take a bigger role when they with the power that they have. And we have three on Zoom. I'm gonna go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. You have three minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any member of the committee can request a division of the question.
[Zac Bears]: The paper for the general fund was about $189 million.
[Zac Bears]: The 190 includes more than just the property tax levy.
[Zac Bears]: There was 2.8 million this year. It was the highest amount in the last 20 fiscal years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Tony Tanks on Zoom. Tony, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have, uh, two people who have spoken already on zoom, and I also have two public comments to read. I'm going to read the public comments now. Um, Jessica Taddeo, 50 fells. You have mentored. I may to the members of the city council, the mayor and the public. I write to you today to express my support for proposition two and a half override and use of a free cash reserves to fund our schools, fix our infrastructure and provide mentor for the permanent support structure. I do not believe it as a generalization to claim, and a majority of residents were shocked and appalled to see potential outline cuts to various programs. And as one of those residents, I believe wholeheartedly that this is the only solution to these problems we face. I ask that you use the city's free cash as a short-term solution so a budget that funds all necessary programs can be passed by this council. The free cash is meant for emergencies and this is without a doubt an emergency. I believe the use of these reserves are a necessary step prior to a vote taken by the public regarding a debt exclusion and override. I've spent a lot of time talking to voters over the last four months, and many of them are quick to voice their concerns over funding for the schools and the state of our infrastructure. These are the two biggest issues for residents in my eyes. This seems like a perfect fix. I believe that with a coordinated effort, strong message, and open dialogue, Many residents would be in support of any measure taken that promises a strong school system. I am a product of Medford Public Schools, and I am endlessly grateful for the education and support I received. It is important to me that future generations of students receive the same support, programs, and opportunities my classmates and I enjoyed, specifically fostering a performing arts program. Research shows that those involved in art, performance, music, and dance are smarter, better analytical thinkers, and bring a necessary perspective to more, quote, conventional disciplines. Additionally, these spaces are refuge for many children seeking communities and way to express themselves. The proposed cuts are daunting and I believe that 7.5 million as a minimum for an override would set up younger generations for a future of success, knowledge and creativity. Opponents of this will claim that supporters are squeezing money from working families, unfairly taxing residents, and that the city will not use the money responsibly. These opponents are the same people with the loudest voices expressing concerns about our schools, roads, potholes, and lack of services for residents. To opponents, I say, no matter your politics or views on the city finances, a strong foundation for future generations is paramount to any political or financial concerns in the present. To opponents, I say these resolutions are proof that your elected officials are listening and helping. I implore you to consider a budget that allows our schools to flourish for decades to come. The time is now to fix this longstanding issue. Thank you. And I have from Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street. Dear Medford City Council members, I am part of a demographic that might be expected to oppose tax overrides such as the ones being proposed for the November ballot, a senior citizen with no children or grandchildren in the Metro Public Schools on a fixed income and with new and increasing medical bills and other expenses. But in fact, I am 100% in favor of this measure being approved to appear on the November ballot, where I'll be eager to vote for it. Simply put, the city of Medford, the cost of business continues to go up, just like my plumber does when costs increase, it is reasonable to ask the paying customer to pay more for services. It has never been more clear than during the current budget process, especially regarding the schools, that we don't have enough revenue to cover the basic costs of running a high-functioning city, let alone major capital improvements such as a new fire headquarters or high school. It is appropriate for the city to examine how to increase revenue from each leg of the multi-leg stool of sources, including property taxes. True, in my 24 years as a Medford homeowner, our taxes have been low compared to neighboring communities, one of the many things that make Medford such an appealing place to live. Sure, everyone wants their taxes to be as low as possible, but a small increase in this segment by way of an override is a reasonable proposition and a good investment in helping the city bring its annual budget closer to where it needs to be to cover essential needs. residents should know that the city is working hard to increase revenue from the other legs of that stool as well. After a major decline in life sciences, sidelined several promising large projects, major commercial development projects have reemerged, including a $20 million makeover of former Century Bank building at 400 Mystic Avenue and large residential projects at 970 Fellsway and 280 Mystic Avenue. These and others to follow will be providing substantial commercial tax and other revenue to the city. The Mass Gaming Commission recently approved the city's current request of $1.04 million from its Community Mitigation Fund for 10 projects across the city, including $300,000 for improvements to Chevalier Theatre, the primary economic engine for Medford Square that has created tens of thousands of dollars in meal and hotel tax revenue for the city alone, not to mention jobs and steady purchases from a multitude of other Medford businesses. Those are just two examples I cite in response to people say the city is overburdening the residential taxpayer. Finally, I noted above, we're talking about the city covering essential needs such as robust education, that doesn't short-range departments such as the arts, and not that many things in the city could truly use help to make it thrive. Our city's departments are hardly bloated. For example, Somerville, albeit a bit larger city, has 10 staff members for its arts council. The Medford Arts Council has zero staff members, and the council's volunteer members do not even receive a stipend for serving. just think how much stronger this important community asset both in terms of quality of life and its significant economic benefit to the city could be with just one staff member rather than the city relying almost completely on volunteers such as those with cache west medford open studios medford porch fest etc to put on more than 1 000 events you'd see 1 000 events a year almost totally on their own Last, the city must be able to offer competitive wages in order to attract top quality employees. Many city hiring managers will tell you about strong candidates who are lost to other municipalities, not to mention the private sector due to higher salary offers. The city needs more revenue to provide residents with the best possible staff and best possible services. I strongly urge the city council to vote in favor of putting three proposed tax overrides on the November ballot. And thank you for all your hard work in bringing forward these vitally important measures. Sincerely, Ken Kraus, 50 Mystic Street, Medford, Massachusetts. Pursuant to the new rule, I'm gonna go for one minute to Jess H, and then one minute to Sharon Deeso. Jess H, you have one minute, name and address. Well, you've already given your name and address. Just confirm that you're Jess Healy.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, can you restate the question one more time?
[Zac Bears]: There is a proposal before the Community Development Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a substance use clinic on Salem Street. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the final decision maker on that proposal.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and they have a Community Development Board in a zoning board meeting, I believe on June 25th and June 26th to consider that application for a special permit.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll go to Sharon Diaso. Sharon, you're going to have one minute if you could just confirm that you are Sharon, and then I'll give you one minute for a special permit.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, you're going to have one minute if you could just confirm That you are sharing and then I'll give you one.
[Zac Bears]: Sharon, if you could meet your TV and then I'll unmute you.
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, as Councilor Collins has moved to divide the question, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll to divide the question. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The question is divided. I did want to note before we move through. The mayor did submit slightly amended versions of these papers. Those were the versions that I read prior to this. I did have a suggestion if a motion could be made. I believe there is a copy edit error in 24414 and 24415. If we could strike the words FY 2025 before general operations. If folks need a second to review that. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's in the question.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it would just be before the words general operations.
[Zac Bears]: Then it would be for both, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll be happy to second. On the motion of Vice President Collins to amend 24414 and 24415 to strike the phrase FY 2025 before the word general operations in the question language, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's a copy edit to the question language on 24414 and 24415. The question states for the FY 2025 general operations and then also states for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. So it would just be removing the duplicative FY 2025 general before the words general operations.
[Zac Bears]: for everyone's edification. Fiscal year 2025 is the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, that was my understanding. OK, great. I just wanted to make sure we were doing the same thing. Thanks for all the questions. And that's how the clerk has it as well. Great. On that motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one in the negative. The motion is amended. Is there a motion on the consideration of 24413, the two and a half dead exclusion order and ballot question for fire headquarters, as amended by the Mayor Vice President.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative. One of the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion? Vice President Collins on 24414 the proposition to an F override order for ballot and ballot question for schools and DPW as proposed and amended by the mayor. Motion to approve second and as further amended by the council. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Cook, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. On 24415, offered by myself and Vice President Collins as amended by the council, Proposition 2.5 Override Order and ballot question to invest in future Medford Public Schools, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. It is the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one of the negative the motion passes on 24410 offered by the mayor as amended by the mayor to use ARPA one time funds of $1.75 million to stabilize the school department budget for fiscal 25 vice president. Motion to approve the motion of Vice President Collins to approve as amended seconded by Council is our Oh, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one negative, the motion passes. And on 24045, the fiscal year 2025 budget submission offered by the mayor as amended by the mayor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. So with that, the council has advanced the three questions with the assent of the mayor to the secretary of the Commonwealth, uh, for consideration by the voters, November, 2024 ballot. Uh, and we have advanced a one-time fund stabilization for the schools and the city budget for fiscal 2025 has passed. Onto the next. 24-404 offered by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, request for a food truck permit for chicken and rice guys. June 15th, 2024. Can we take this one out of order to just get it done?
[Zac Bears]: Motion, the rules are, can we?
[Zac Bears]: They were suspended, great. On behalf of the below food entity, I respectfully submit to the city council the following request for a food truck permit for the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval, vendors are required to adhere to the health department food safety requirements. This is for Circle the Square, food truck of chicken and rice guys at Circle the Square on Saturday, June 15th. Any discussion? Is there a motion? Council Vice President Collins. The motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have a motion passes. Vice President Collins, I'm gonna ask you to take the chair. 24-412. resolution to recognize and discuss the Stop the Sigma campaign in relation to our neighbors with substance use disorder, whereas substance use disorder is a recognized disease by the medical community, and whereas in 2023, Medford was home to 403 individuals with active prescriptions for buprenorphine and medications as a treatment for opioid recovery. And whereas buprenorphine and methadone are lifesaving medications to treat substance use disorder and are effective at treating opioid dependence. And whereas between July, 2022 and June, 2023, Medford was home to 22 individuals who died for reasons related to substance use disorder. And whereas in 2018, 16% of individuals with a substance use disorder did not seek treatment because they were worried it would have a negative impact on their employment and approximately 15% 15% felt it would impact their community's view of them. And whereas a disease is not a moral failing now, therefore be it hereby resolved that the Medford City Council recognize that all Medford residents are deserving of care and respect, regardless of their medical disability or disability status, be it further resolved that when we speak of the services we can offer our residents, we do so while offering the utmost dignity to all people at all times. Council Luzardo.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank my fellow Councilor for putting this item on the agenda, bringing up some very important issues. And I think we all know how much the opioid crisis has impacted our community. Such a serious, serious issue. And, you know, whether it's meant for overcoming addiction or our prevention and outreach office or just the sheer amount of work that so many people in this community have done to do harm reduction and also try to just save lives. I think it's important that we acknowledge that, you know, yes, it's a difficult issue. Yes, it's tough. But that There are people and families in our community who have been so deeply affected by substance use disorders and people in our community. I mean, I have been to funerals of people I went to school with in Medford, at Medford High School, who maybe if our society thought about these a little bit differently or spoke about these issues a little bit differently, would have gotten the help that they needed and they'd be alive. So for every statement that is made that I can understand fear and concern, but I think that humanizing these human beings in our community and these human beings in our, whether they're just in Medford or they're around the region, it's important for us to do that. And I see that as the intent of this resolution. So I thank you for putting it forward.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to note one thing. I misspoke on the dates of the meetings. It's not the 25th and the 26th. It is June 26th, Community Development Board, June 27th, Zoning Board of Appeals. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean from the negative motion passes to 4416 offered by President President Vice President Collins be resolved that the member city council recognize and celebrate Caribbean American Heritage Month Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any Councilor Tseng any further comment? Seeing none, just want to acknowledge this is a month, a heritage month that is acknowledged and created by the federal government under presidents of all parties, congresses of all parties, and has been around since the early 2000s. So it is just another great thing to celebrate. And thank you to all of our residents from Caribbean American communities who make up a wonderful part of the tapestry that is on the motion of vice-president Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, from a negative motion passes public participation. Anyone want to talk about anything they want? I believe Cheryl Rodriguez had a petition on, but I believe that she spoke under the prior item. So with that, is there anyone who would like to speak in public participation in the chamber or on Zoom? Please come to the podium in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. I do see Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Tanks, I'll recognize Mr. Castagnetti. Public participation, is there anything that you'd like to? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I do see a hand for Tony tanks. Tony name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Appreciate it. Thank you. Sure. All right. Is there a motion on the floor? Motion to adjourn on the motion of vice president calls to adjourn seconded by council is arm. It's clear. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No five minutes over to the negative motion passes the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all and good night.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, 11th regular meeting, May 28, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Meeting is called to order. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Before we start, we're going to give a citation based on a vote we took at a prior meeting. I'm going to read out the citation. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council commendation to former Council President Richard F. Caraviello on the honor of being named the 2024 Medford Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. Your long-time commitment to the City of Medford, the Medford City Council, our residents, and the local business community makes you an outstanding Citizen of the Year and a valued member of our community. Respectfully offered by Zach Bears, Council President, and George Scarpelli, City Councilor.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Would you like to say anything? You can come up. You can come up. You might have to press the button. A light should come on. No?
[Zac Bears]: There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome back.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Rick. Take a picture. 24-365 resolution to recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion by members of the Council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further discussion? Seeing none, on the motion. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-368, offered by Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved that the City Council recognize and celebrate Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? All opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24-372? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to suspend the roll to take paper 24-372, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? It's under suspension. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-372 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council acknowledge our U.S. military personnel who died while serving our country in recognition of Memorial Day and thank them for their ultimate sacrifice in protecting our country's freedoms. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I want to thank Councilor Leming for speaking on behalf of the council at yesterday's Memorial Day Remembrances and thank everyone who participated. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Collins. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. The records, records of the meeting of May 14th, 2024 passed to Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lazzaro, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to approve the records of May 14th, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. Is there a motion to join, describe, and then approve? On the motion of Councilor Callaghan, to join the reports and committees, followed by a brief synopsis, and then approve. seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-045 offered by Council President Bears committee the whole budget May 14, 2024. This was our fifth preliminary budget meeting, we discussed several departments, same with our Committee of the Whole, May 15, 2024. and our Committee of the Whole, May 21st, 2024. 24-073 offered by Councilor Leming, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, Listening Session Subcommittee, May 15th, 2024. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. 24-025 offered by myself, administration and finance committee, May 21st, 2024. This is a meeting to discuss the commercial vacancy tax and commercial vacancy issue. Paper remains in committee. 24-351, 24-354, resident services and public engagement committee, May 22nd, 2024. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And 24-033, Planning and Permits 2024, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? We'll go that way. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-370 offered by councilor Tseng. City Council is under the refer to committee for further discussion resolution to create a residence guide to City Council position processes being resolved with the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, create and publish a short guide in English and commonly spoken non-English languages to the City Council for residents to understand the City Council, its procedures and its processes. Councilor Tseng on the motion to refer to resident services and public engagement, seconded by? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Do you want to give a short?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng, seconded by Vice President Collins to refer to Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins... and I would ask, please, if you're having private conversations, please take them out in the hallway. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion to suspend the rules, take paper 24-366 out of order by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-366, request for appropriation, Community Preservation Committee. May 23rd, 2024, to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, regarding Community Preservation Committee appropriation request. On behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend that your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $5,000 from the CPA General Reserve to Trees Medford and the Department of Public Works Forestry Division to conduct an inventory of trees in city parks. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. CPC Chairperson, CPA Manager, Teresa DuPont and a member of Trees Medford will be in attendance to answer questions. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor.
[Zac Bears]: Amanda, if you could raise your hand on Zoom. And once again, I please ask if you're having a private conversation, please take it out in the hallway. Please, if you're gonna keep talking, thank you. There's people talking in the back.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not seeing Amanda.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm happy to read the funding recommendation letter if you'd like. Funding recommendation decision, May 14, 2024. Applicant name, City of Medford Forestry Division. Co-applicant name, Trees Medford. Public tree park inventory on May 14th, 2024. The City of Medford Community Preservation Committee, CPC, voted six to zero to zero to recommend to the City Council that Trees Medford and Medford's Forestry Division be awarded $5,000 to conduct a citywide inventory of all public trees in city-owned parks. In reaching the decision, the CPC found that the project meets the CPA objective of preserving and restoring city-owned recreation spaces. Any further questions by a member of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion approved by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Thank you, Theresa.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24-364, petition for a common victualler license, the Great American Beer Hall LLC. On file, business certificate, petition received, letter of compliance received, state tax ID received, workers' compensation pending, treasurer, collector, building department and fire department pending final approval, police and traffic impact pending final approval. and Health Department pending final approval. We do have the petitioners before us, just a little context. We are, I think the intent is to move forward here on a conditional common victualler license pending all of the approvals listed as well as the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And with that, I'm happy to turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli or the petitioners.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions? by members of the council for the applicant before we move ahead. Seeing none, I'll just say we also know we've received the application for a special permit that has to go through the advertising process, so likely there will be on the meeting of June 25th, we will have you back to talk about that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the common victualler's license conditional on the pending approvals listed here, as well as the occupancy permit, and do you also want to do a review?
[Zac Bears]: A 30 60 day review upon opening, so we'll hear from everyone. And if there's issues, we'll have you back to talk about it. Um, so the motion is to approve conditional on the pending approvals as well as the occupancy permit and 30 and 60 day review upon opening.
[Zac Bears]: Great. On that motion by Councilors Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none negative. The motion passes. Thanks, you guys.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you in a couple weeks.
[Zac Bears]: Good luck. 24-359 offered by Vice President Collins. Resolution to hear an update from the Brooks Park Tenant Associations. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council hear an update from representatives of the Brooks Park Tenant Association on the status of their tenancies and efforts to negotiate with their property owner. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You're good.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I invited them. They did not respond.
[Zac Bears]: They didn't even have a conversation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Name an address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, just if I could give some context, we were working intensely to try to have an affordable housing nonprofit purchase this property instead of the for profit developer. Sadly, the city does not have available funds in an affordable housing trust, which we just created this past year. But you know, If there had been those funds available to make the difference between the offer from this for-profit developer who wants to kick everyone out versus the affordable housing nonprofit that wanted to work with everyone so they could stay, that's one of the efforts that we've put under. If the for-profit developer happened to be charged a transfer fee and the affordable housing developer was exempt from that, maybe that would have been the difference. And of course, this council has proposed several items related that have been discussed around addressing this issue of these large corporations buying buildings and apartments that people live in and call their home and kicking them out and turning it into a profit center. So we will continue those efforts because it's important. This isn't the first time we've seen it. This isn't the first tenant association. I see a friend right here to talk about their experience with another tenant association in another building where this happened. It's not the first. It won't be the last. And the people it hurts are our neighbors and our friends. So we're working on it. We need more resources, and we need more policy tools. We need the state to give them to us, and we need more funds to make the city a real actor in this field. So just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Please take private conversations out in the hall. There's just kind of some whispers and conversations happening. If you're going to talk, please take it out in the hall and respect the people who are speaking and respect this public meeting. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So you just have to come a little closer to the microphone. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Oh, I'm not a co-host. Somebody ask Eileen to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Name and address for the record, please, Eileen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Leming. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just want to put out a couple of things. I think if we're talking about unity, we're talking about all agreeing, but we're also talking about misinformation. The proposals that have been put forward when we talk about the someone in their home, they're on a fixed income, they're scared, they live in their home, they live in a single family or two family or three family that they're afraid of these proposals that we're proposing. The next sentence out of everybody's mouth needs to be, all of these proposals exclude your house. We're not going after one, two, and three families. We're not going after owner occupied. So when we talk about misinformation, that's the misinformation.
[Zac Bears]: No, no point of information. No, no, it's point of information.
[Zac Bears]: When I'm done, thank you. So that's the facts. Those are the facts. So we're all talking about unity here. We're talking about we agree that large corporations shouldn't come in and buy large multi-unit buildings and kick everybody out. Great, so you support the proposals that we have on the table around the rent stabilization that says that and the transfer fee that says that? Because that's what you all say.
[Zac Bears]: That's what you all say, sir. So that's the information.
[Zac Bears]: No, we've answered that question. We've answered that question.
[Zac Bears]: It's not.
[Zac Bears]: Just false information.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: We have. That's every email response to every email I've received. The demands are shifting, sir, because the demands were don't move it at all. You're moving too fast. And now the demands are we're moving too slow?
[Zac Bears]: I can't count. I can't count which demands to meet. Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Thank you. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Please, please, please do not...
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: direct your comments to the chair. There are people who, when they don't pay their property taxes, they're foreclosed upon. That is something that happens.
[Zac Bears]: There is an option for property tax deferments, yes.
[Zac Bears]: It depends. I mean, if they're not taking that policy out, and then they're not paying their taxes, all people are who do not pay their property taxes...
[Zac Bears]: What are you saying? It's a rampant problem? There's hundreds of people a month?
[Zac Bears]: It's not an eviction, it's a foreclosure, so we want to be factual.
[Zac Bears]: And that happens, there are cases where that happens.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't think anyone's saying that it's equivalent, but I don't think this is.
[Zac Bears]: We're not gonna engage in dialogue. Finish your comment, and we're gonna move on.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment.
[Zac Bears]: You can't respond, Matthew, please.
[Zac Bears]: Please sit down. Thank you. We're gonna go to Munir Germanus on zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Susan Girard on zoom name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Andrew, please point your camera up.
[Zac Bears]: 20 years ago, we would have a big TV3 argument about that. Mr. Castagnetti, we will allow you to speak but your video is off. And staying off.
[Zac Bears]: Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the public? Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm just going to add one other thing, which is we could, and this was an initiative of, oh, I'll go to you, Mr. Merritt. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: All taxable property.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: That has happened. It's been ruled illegal and it's something that this council is working very diligently.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's not a good law.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Merritt, we've entertained a very long comment here. Would you like to continue close up a wrapping up point?
[Zac Bears]: I think we've been very clear about our position.
[Zac Bears]: We're not going to have a debate about who comments what on Reddit. We're just not going to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Who's demonizing homeowners? You're inferring something that no one is saying. Really? You're inferring something that no one is saying.
[Zac Bears]: No, people are interpreting things because they're being misinformed.
[Zac Bears]: We are considering, you just said it, the city does not generate enough revenue to fix what it needs to fix. We are considering generating revenue to fix what needs to be fixed.
[Zac Bears]: What would you cut, Mr. Merritt? What would you cut? 10 teachers, 10 firefighters?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt. Thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Merritt.
[Zac Bears]: I would suggest, I can't make a motion, would anyone like to make a motion to request that Charlesgate and the property owner negotiate with the tenants?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to send a letter to Charlesgate and the property owner to request that they negotiate with the Tenants Association. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: The request is from the tenants association. They would like to open negotiations. So I think we can send a letter on behalf of the council that we would request that the property owner respond to their tenants and enter negotiations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you on the further amendment of Councilor Scarpelli to request that the mayor use her executive power to assist these tenants?
[Zac Bears]: Did you want to this this mediation thing to be an amendment?
[Zac Bears]: So let's make that a B paper to refer a new paper to committee to request a discussion about funding a mediation service. On the B paper, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Oh, is there a second on the B paper? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On the motion to send a letter to the property manager and property owner, request they enter negotiations with the tenant association and to request that the mayor use her executive authority. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-367 Zoning Update Project Proposed Amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance Package 1. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we refer the following recommendations for amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance to the Community Development Board as reported out of the Planning and Permitting Committee. 1. Amending the format of the table of use and parking regulations to replace the parking and loading code columns with specific parking and loading requirements. 2. Amending Section 94-12 definitions to add new defined terms and revise existing definitions. 3. Adopt a new GIS-based digital zoning map. Adoption of the new map format is not intended to result in any material changes to the zoning of any parcels within the City, but is intended to be applicable to the City regarding the existing zoning designation for all properties in the City. 4. Exempt municipal uses from certain requirements of the Table of Use and Parking Regulations and the Table of Dimensional Requirements. The recommended changes are attached and can be referred to informally as Package 1 of recommendations from the City Council and Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability's Zoning Update Projects with Innes Associates, Council Paper 24-033. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative. Motion passes. 24-369 resolution request an update on the creation of a community liaison position for the Asian American community. Be it resolved that the City Council ask the City Administration for updates on plans or possibilities to create a community liaison position for the Asian American community in Medford, and ask how the Council can support these efforts. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Councilor Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the Council? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-371 be resolved the city council review options and supporting the school committee budget for the resolve the city council review the mayor's presentation of budget needs. I'm going to ask Councilor Scarpelli, if you have an amendment to make this significantly more specific right now, I will certainly entertain it. If not, I think we're running afoul of a couple Massachusetts general laws here and entertaining the discussion of the paper. So if you could outline what all options in supporting the budget means, as in the form of an amendment, and if you could outline, review the mayor's presentation in the form of an amendment. After I hear the amendment, I'll decide whether or not to vote on it.
[Zac Bears]: is just on the second phrase, review the presentation. Is there any specific?
[Zac Bears]: Just, I want to define the amendment for Councilors, and then we can adopt the amended resolution, then we can consider it. So the amendment is to amend this resolution to be a specific requesting that the council request that the mayor appropriate 5 to 7 million in free cash as an appropriation before free cash is certified to fund the schools. And then also is it a motion to request the plan that outlined how she intends to spend the free cash reserves that she outlined on social media?
[Zac Bears]: Sounds like the free cash thing is re-amendable to having the discussion of the motion as amended, which is to request the mayor appropriate five to seven million in free cash. Okay. All right. On the amendment, are there any objections to the amendment?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to table, is there a second?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Scarpelli...
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to table, is there a second? Is there a second? I need a second, and it's undebatable. Second by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the role on the motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: No. Three in the affirmative, four in the negative. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have the answer when you free cash is certified. Once the end of the fiscal year happens, we have to wait for it to be certified. So it could be as three to nine months. So it would be certified between September, October, as late as April or May of next year.
[Zac Bears]: If an appropriation of free cash is not made by June 30th, it cannot be made until free cash is then certified.
[Zac Bears]: Up until certification, correct.
[Zac Bears]: Further discussion? Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So we all agree. We all agree that the schools need five to seven more million dollars. So we talk about the facts. Those are the facts. We all agree. Now we appropriate them for free cash. It's just delaying the inevitable. We won't have any next year. We're just postponing the devastation until June 30th, 2020, doing exactly what we said we don't want to do, which is use one-time funds to, for whatever reason, have the thing. So we're having the same argument here. We agree that the schools need $5 to $7 million. If we appropriate free cash, then we postpone the discussion for a year. If we actually raise the money, then we have it in perpetuity. Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins. Thank you. Vice President Collins. I recognize Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I recognize Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: That's not true sir. You are literally... you're lying to the public.
[Zac Bears]: You don't. There's nothing. Order. Order.
[Zac Bears]: I'm actually not. Is there a motion to recess?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to recess?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to recess. Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? 15 minute recess. On the motion of Councilor Collins to reconvene, seconded by?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. President Bears. Councilor Leming, then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming has invoked Rule 21 of the Medford City Council, which gives any city council the right to table any financial paper until the next regular meeting. Paper is tabled. Public participation. To participate out of zoom. Please email ahurtubise... Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: So this is a rule 21. Any financial paper placed before the council has to move on the table for until the next meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Public participation. To participate outside of Zoom, please email ahurtubise@medfordma.gov. Name and address for the record, please. Is the microphone on?
[Zac Bears]: There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address record, please.
[Zac Bears]: And I just wanna say, Mr. Geehan, for myself and Vice President Collins as well, We know the number. We're trying to find the short-term solution and the long-term sustainable solution. We're trying to get that as quickly as possible. We're working with the person who gets to make that decision, and that that's what is taking time right now. Our goal is to get it to as quickly as possible. My hopes are that the city, the public, the council, the teachers unit, and everybody will have a budget presented to them by the end of this week. And then we'll know more about what that means in the short-term and the long-term. That's my understanding of the timeline right now, but we are working diligently to try to get these funds to stabilize the school funding.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: This is open public comment.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Gonna go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please. Mr. Castagnetti, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't have an answer to that question, but we can look into it.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor? On the motion to adjourn by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Throw in, I think the GIS zoning map as well.
[Zac Bears]: The wall is also the lot line, is what you're saying?
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just want to note, we do have kind of a time clock here. We have a bunch of other major stuff, and we've been spending a lot of time on things we've talked about already. I wanted to just echo what Vice President Collins suggested. If we could read through all the remaining definitions, if people could raise their flag on all of them, and then we can move on to the other items, that would be a preference of this councillor. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I would say that we have another Council meeting, another CDB hearing, and another Council hearing once again to belabor anything we want.
[Zac Bears]: Right now it says accessory. It's just an accessory and accessory structure. And this is just changing accessory to accessory use because it's not changing anything about accessory structure. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: just something that we've talked about is actually wanting to get hours out of zoning because having special permit requirements for hours is kind of just a strange way to go about it. So I think we'd want to have a kind of holistic discussion about moving hours to a general ordinance. And then maybe we could look at different hours for different uses along the lines of what Councilor Callahan just said.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to refer out the definitions to the regular California.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I report out the table of use and changes as well.
[Zac Bears]: Motion is to refer the table of use and parking regulations changes and the definitions changes to the regular meeting. We haven't discussed it yet, but you can throw this.
[Zac Bears]: The changes to the definitions. I'll add a third one, which is the GIS digital zoning map. We don't have to vote on it all right now, but those I think were the three things.
[Zac Bears]: Just to recenter where we are on the agenda now, an hour and 15 minutes in, we've talked about the table of use and parking regulations and the definitions. And the other 2 things we wanted to report out were the GIS zoning map and the municipal exemption from certain use and dimensional requirements. So, if we could, if anyone could speak quickly to the zoning map, I think that's a 2 minute. Explanation and then we could do the municipal.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just 1 kind of thing. Um, just a couple logistical things. Paula, could you send these slides if you have already? I apologize for missing it. I just want to upload. They get them uploaded. Uh, to our meeting portal, just if anyone comes back and wants to see them. Um, in terms of logistics, I have. a draft is something to put on the agenda for our meeting on the 28th, basically just saying it would come from the committee talking about these four items and referring them out to Community Development Board. And I used some of the language from the legal hearing notice that was drafted for the future meetings, but it's not a public hearing yet. It's just referring it out to CD for the public hearing. but can we get the actual like word document changes of the definitions the table of use and parking regulations uh the and the uh this municipal type plan review um can we get those by tomorrow so we can attach them to the agenda we have a an advanced agenda deadline because of memorial day holiday um so we need the agenda to go out by 4 30 tomorrow I'd like to have these attachments attached to it when it goes out if possible. Then I don't know, Alicia, if there's anything you feel like we need to attach for the GIS zoning map or any language that you'd want to use. If you feel like the language in the legal hearing notice is sufficient for a referral out, then I think we'd be fine there. But those are just some procedural things I want to make sure we have wrapped so that this all gets done tomorrow and gets on the agenda for Tuesday.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And feel free to use CC, Kit, Alicia, myself, the city clerk, and one of us will make sure it gets in the right place.
[Zac Bears]: So moved.
[Zac Bears]: Second.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe we should just amend my motion to also include the municipal site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: That's actually on me. 12th and 26th. It's the 19th.
[Zac Bears]: I have 12 and 26 on the.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Administration and Finance Committee, May 21, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: For present one absent meetings called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Administration Finance Committee, May 21st, 2024 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall 85, George P. Hassett Drive, Medford M.A. and by Zoom. Purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-025 offered by Councilor Leming regarding commercial vacancy tax. The full description is whereas the City of Medford has many commercial storefronts that are either vacant or for that are either vacant for unacceptably long periods of time, or are rarely and inconsistently open for business. And whereas there exists insufficient incentive for owners of such property to maintain and rent storefronts to active businesses. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council discuss the adoption of a commercial vacancy tax that can be applied to disincentivize these storefront properties from remaining unoccupied indefinitely. Be it further resolved that this matter be referred to committee for further discussion with the chief assessor, finance director, and economic development director.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have the economic development director who was invited, so I'm happy to go to him first. We have Sal DiStefano. Sal, I see you're in your car. It's a good time to chat. We can't hear you. I just asked you to unmute. You're going to have to click a button.
[Zac Bears]: So we just lost you for about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: We can, it sounds good now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. DeStefano. Any further questions or comments by members of the council? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming, then Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, but he's talked a lot. I'm owning you.
[Zac Bears]: It's a bad sound system. Let's be careful. Let's be careful we don't get misheard.
[Zac Bears]: I think you said it best when you said we don't have to have all the details at this time. And I think we actually don't behoove ourselves to discuss the details of the ordinance that we would potentially be able to pass before we have the power to do it. And I think we get caught up in those discussions and it actually confuses the process. I was going to say that like 20 minutes ago, but I kind of already let it go. So I decided to let it go more, which maybe wasn't the best choice. But in any case, I just want to say three things. Number one, one of the issues here is local control. I generally think that it's better for the city of Benford to have more authority than less authority and to have an additional tool in the toolbox. So in that sense, I think there's validity here. My second piece is on legal review. In addition to the other potential motions discussed, I believe by Vice President Collins, there'll be a motion to keep it in committee and have further discussion generally on the commercial vacancy issue. I'd also like to see the text of the draft Home Rule petition reviewed by legal counsel. My third issue is just generally what we're trying to solve for here. I think we all know that, you know, good economics shows that good, fair, and free markets are markets with good regulation. One of the things we're trying to correct for here is regulations outside of our control. There are tax incentives at the federal level that have perverse incentives and create perverse incentives. There are externalities that the regulatory system doesn't account for. And as someone, I think Sal noted, a lot of this is about relationships and network theory tends to throw microeconomics 101, as Friedman would say, into disarray very quickly because you have relationships and actually the personal making a big impact here. Or you may have an individual who has a certain portfolio where it makes sense to keep something vacant, where you may have an individual with a portfolio where it doesn't. And that's where the idea, the very clean but very unrealistic idea of the uniform rational actor tends to fall apart. So just putting that out there, I do agree that obviously the regulations at the multiple levels of government that impact commercial vacancy clearly are out of whack. I tend to agree that having more tools at the municipal level to try to align them is a good thing. And this might well be one, but I think we have to have more discussion about that. So I would request, in addition to the motion I think Vice President Collins was intending to propose, that we also refer this to draft home rule petition to legal counsel. But just as one person in general, my opinion is that getting more home rule power from the state is a good thing. And this could be a good tool in the scope of trying to address this problem. So with that, is there a motion on the floor? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On that motion, is there any discussion by members of the public? We have a second from Councilor Lazzaro. Any discussion by members of the public? Mr. Fiore, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes. We're running up on the clock. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Do I have three minutes? You have three minutes starting now, yeah, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Just to clarify, we are proposing having the power to discuss implementing a tax.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And I think that is the intent of Vice President Collins' motion. Any further discussion by members of the public? Seeing none on Zoom and none in the chamber, on the motion by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Any further motions? On the motion adjourned by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? For those on Zoom, we are moving to our Committee of the Whole meeting on the school budget, so you'll have to rejoin the next link. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: May 21 2024 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Present. None absent this meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee the whole at 7pm in the city council chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George B has to drive Medford, Massachusetts and by zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 25. This is preliminary budget meeting seven. This is the seventh preliminary budget meeting. The mayor has communicated the following departments will be present. The health department, Medford public schools, and the department of planning development and sustainability. We will be hearing first from the health department, and then we will go to the schools and planning and development sustainability, unless planning development sustainability makes it in time. So we will go first to you. Director O'Connor, welcome back. You feel free to sit if you'd like. And what I'm going to do, if you haven't been watching the Barnburner budget meetings we've been having, is I'm going to read the fiscal 24 budget, the fiscal 25 budget, any headcount changes, and then I'll go through the change sheet on the back, and then I'll turn it over to you to fill in anything that I missed, to share your narrative. And also, one thing we'd love to hear is if there's stuff that your department would like to be doing, that you didn't request in this budget that you are hoping to get in future budgets. That is definitely a priority of the council. We know it's a tough budget year, but we also know there's a lot of needs in the city that need to be met. So we'd love to hear that. But with that, I will start us off. We have Department 510, 519, that is our Board of Health and Animal Control. Fiscal 24 budget $776,510. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $806,185.93. The fiscal 24 headcount was 11. The proposed fiscal 25 headcount is 10. I believe that's a reduction of one part-time nurse. And the entire increase from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25 is a fixed cost growth increase. No new programs are being planned. This is an increase due to 2% non-union pay increases, step increases, and two employees who are fully funded through ARPA who are now going to be funded 50% through ARPA and 50% through the general fund. And those are offset again by a decrease in the part-time employees and some very minor changes in the ordinary expenses. And with that, I will turn it over to you, Director O'Connor. Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: One second. The microphone may not be on. Are you seeing the light? It's green. It is on? Okay, good. Yeah. Sorry about that, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for saying any further questions by members of the council. So you know, I have two. Number one, could you say like, and it doesn't have to be exact, but approximately how much of the programming of the health department is grant funded?
[Zac Bears]: And is that grant funding stable and reliable? And I guess we love the prevention outreach work. We want to fund it. So how reliable and stable is the grant funding? And how much, you know, if you're thinking about if the grants were all gone tomorrow, how much of that would you want to bring on to the general fund so that we could keep doing it?
[Zac Bears]: So the opioid's pretty stable. The state funding for resiliency is, we have it for about three years, but we would need to have that renewed, otherwise that would go away. And then some of the grants are even shorter term than that. And this is probably a leading question, but I'm guessing you'd want to keep doing all of that. Yes, of course, yes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate just understanding that and understanding typically half of the work of our health department that we see isn't coming out of the general fund right now, which I think is a testament. I think finding those grants is great, but we're not talking about doing something a one-off. We're talking about things we want to keep doing. And sometimes grant funding doesn't always, isn't always there. So any further questions from members of the council for our director of the health department? Seeing none, are there any questions or comments by members of the public on the health department budget? Seeing no one in the room and no hands raised on Zoom. I think we're all set, Director O'Connor. Civil defense. We do have to do civil defense. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. The one thing I want to say also, if we do see a significant difference between what we talked about tonight and what we get in the budget proposal, not that we expect that, but if we do, we may invite you back here in June. This is a new budget process, and we've been really working hard with the administration to do things a bit earlier. That's why you're here in May, before we've seen the budget. You know, if the administration wants to have you back, or if you want to come back, or if we want you to come back, we could see you again in June. Sure. Civil defense, we have fiscal 24 budget, $9,390. Fiscal 25 budget, $9,840. And this looks like it is just an increase in the public safety supplies and the dues, conferences, and travel. And if there's anything else you want to share on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further questions? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public on civil defense? Seeing none, I will just say up at the station in the Heights, there's some great civil defense stuff from about 1953. So if you want some old blood transfusion kits or 60 year old biscuits. Yeah, that was pretty wild to see. That was just, yeah. So, you know, didn't know about it. Hi, member of the public, do you want to comment on the health department?
[Zac Bears]: Sure, you can make a comment to me and it's up to the director. Yes. If you could let, yes, you can sit down and give your name and address for the record and happy to hear your comment. You can direct your comments to me and then we'll go back to the director.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, no, it's just, it's a formality. It's totally just technically all comments have to go through the chair.
[Zac Bears]: It does.
[Zac Bears]: So I can share a couple things and then the director, however you would like to share, You know, we have been working, the director shared a little bit earlier about road and control. Some things we've done is we've passed an ordinance a couple of years ago now. We require any new construction to have a pest management plan. We've been trying to build in more and more as much as we can on the road and control with the guidance and advice of the health department. Beyond that, that's really our role in it. Definitely director O'Connor is the person to talk to or the health office. It may behoove us if you have a minute to talk after the testimony, if that's all right with you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. All right. Any further comments on the health department or civil defense? Seeing none, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Go Celtics. Celtics won. I would. Wouldn't it be nice right here in the big screen? All right. Give me one moment. I want to see if we have Director Hunt. I think, sadly, we're not going to make it. PDS will go after the public schools. So next we'll hear from Metro Public Schools, our superintendent, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent, and our director of finance are here with us. We have some school committee members in the chamber and on Zoom as well. So excited to be here. It's a little different here. So for every department that we've heard up until this point, the city council, looks at line item budgets. For the school, Medford Public Schools, there's a different process, obviously, because there is a school committee. So what happened so far, the school committee has done its process of developing a budget along with the school administration. Last night, the school committee made a formal request to the city of Medford for an amount that is budgeted. The mayor will then allocate an amount for the Medford Public Schools and the City Council only has the authority to approve that amount or to cut that amount. We cannot increase it. We cannot approve the budget that the school committee requested last night. All we can do is approve or cut the mayor's request. So that's how the process works. I appreciate some of the outreach that we've gotten today asking us to approve the school committee's request that was proposed last night, but that's not how general law process works. So I just wanted to make that clear before we started. Um, that certainly doesn't mean that I think many of the people behind this rail certainly support the request of the school committee and support funding our public schools. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Dr. Edouard-Vincent. I just wanna very quickly, um, I could pull it up. Just note that the school committee requests the municipal government for fiscal 25 was $79,399,774. That's an increase from the fiscal 24 general fund request of $71,200,000. And with that, Madam Superintendent.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jerry. So just before we go to questions from Councilors, I'm going to summarize once again the process here and some of the key numbers. There's a lot of great information. Really appreciate your presentation. So, the request by the school committee as of last night is 79.4 million let's let's round up by a couple hundred bucks. Now pursuant to the council's, the new city budget ordinance, I believe that the mayor provided an initial estimated allocation to the school system about in March. And that was 73.5 million. That was the initial estimate of what they believe the city could provide at that time. So that's a pretty big difference. It's almost $6 million between what was requested by the school committee and the initial estimate. I want to add just a couple more pieces of context. I believe the district, as you indicated in your letter, had proposed a $76.7 million budget, which changed the school committee recommended this full budget. That $76.7 million included the variety of potential cuts that you had determined and were discussed at the school committee earlier this month. Maybe it was end of April, but a few weeks ago. And I also know that the administration has been working to try to increase that 73.5 million through finding other essentially changes on other city departments. So, I just wanted to put that context in play, but really. What has been going around the community a lot has been a discussion of the initial kind of batch of proposed cuts, which got to that 76.7 million number, the school committee has requested the 79.4 million which would, I don't want to get into specific line items because we don't control that. to avoid many of those cuts if that $79.4 million was received. But the estimate was all the way down at $73.5 million. So we have essentially a $6 million need to avoid the cuts that have already been discussed, a $3-something million need to pass a budget that includes those cuts that were discussed. And then if it's below that $76.7, we're talking about finding even more cuts beyond what was discussed at the meeting earlier a few weeks ago. So I just wanted to put that context out there. And then again, procedurally, the school committee has made a request. We are hearing from you a description of that request we will receive in the official budget proposal by the mayor and allocation. And at that point, we can just approve or cut that total allocation to the school. So that really is the council's role in the process. And the mayor is the one who will propose the allocation. And it will be somewhere between the $73.5 million, which would require even more cuts that have been already discussed, and the $79.4 million, which would fully fund this request and wouldn't include the cuts you described. So if you have anything you want to add to what I just said, I'd appreciate the context. But I just wanted to kind of summarize where we're at.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Last thing I'm going to say before I turn it over to Councilors is just one added piece of context for the discussion. This Council, and I believe the administration, but the Council has persistently identified over multiple fiscal years a need for additional funding for all departments and our public school system. We have discussed the structural underfunding of the city of Medford, including Medford Public Schools. And last year, myself and former Council President Morell were able to negotiate an agreement that was publicly presented to the Council. to create a financial task force to work on creating the budget ordinance which we have passed along with a couple of other items and that financial task force has been meeting for several months. There was a public press release from the office of the mayor March 31st I believe talking about us our discussions to create a framework for a debt exclusion for the fire station and an override to address school funding as well as some street and sidewalk funding Those conversations are ongoing. The discussions around this budget have laid bare the need, and I am confident that with the additional discussions between myself and Vice President Collins, Mayor Lungo-Koehn, Chief of Staff Nazarian, and Vice Chair of the School Committee, Jenny Graham, that we can create a proposal and bring it to the voters to address the structural issue. One of our goals with that, as we're still doing research given this discussion, is to see how much of that can address the issues in this year's budget and how that would work. So I personally have been deeply engaged in those discussions. I have, since the first day I ran for office and before, been a strong supporter of the need for additional revenue to provide sufficient funding for not just our schools, but the city as a whole. So I just wanted to add that context to the table. We are still working on that. I wish we had an answer sooner than we have them, but that's where we're at. And my hope is that the outcome of those negotiations would be we're going to be putting something before the voters that would help address significant portion, if not most of this gap, so it will be up to the voters of the city of Medford, but I personally am confident in the voters that they want to fund our schools, too. So with that, I will go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Lazzaro. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I am not. No. We've been meeting since September.
[Zac Bears]: We have requested information from city finance department staff as needed.
[Zac Bears]: If I could just very quickly, in terms of the scope and scale of the involvement of the council leadership and the discussions with the city administration, as I noted, we've been meeting Since September of 2023, I wouldn't say anything otherwise that there have been disagreements in that group about the scope and scale of our medias and what an overrider debt exclusion should look like. Through those meetings, we have narrowed that gap significantly. We have worked through the mechanisms available to us and our understanding of the immediate future. And that's how we arrived where we are today. One of the things we didn't know was what is new growth and what a local receipt is going to be. We didn't have that until the spring, right? So when it comes about the specifics, yeah, we've been working through that. I'm hopeful that we're going to get somewhere. Would I have liked to have gotten somewhere earlier? Would I have liked information to have been earlier, sure. But again, the council leadership met with the mayor last June. We publicly presented everything that was discussed. We made that agreement and the council voted to approve a budget based on those discussions. I understand you voted against it and I respect that. But we all agree, we agreed last year, we knew we were going to be in a very tough place. with one time funding, ARPA and ESSER included. So, you know, I appreciate the Councilor's perspective. I understand that there's always room to do more, to be earlier, to have more information out there. But I do want to say that Council leadership has been working diligently on that issue. the administration and as I said earlier, I'm confident that we will find an answer that this community can rally around and support to make sure that our schools get the funding that they deserve.
[Zac Bears]: It might not be true. How the process works, once an allocation is made by the mayor and once a budget is approved by the council, the school committee then has to reconcile the difference between the budget they requested and whatever the allocation is. So if the budget they requested is not met, then there would still be a need for
[Zac Bears]: And I think the answer to that, I don't think we're talking about each other. The answer is the school committee has to vote on what the final budget is.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, yeah. I mean, I think that if you, did you like to try to answer it a different way, Madam Superintendent?
[Zac Bears]: And I appreciate that. Listen, I understand- Jerry, when you say cut, you mean it's in that batch of proposed cuts? Yes. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: So I appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: we uh there it's like a graduated uh reimbursement rate so it starts out higher and it gets gradually lower it's 180 60 zero yeah four years and jerry was basically dead on uh it was 8.6 million sending last year and 1.6 million reimbursed so yes seven million of chapters is here tonight so
[Zac Bears]: I would like to request my fellow Councilors please not engage in cross-talk. And also I'd like to add to the meeting record if we could request an update on the Petrangelo fund balance from the Finance Director.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. As one Councilor, I'd just like to reiterate, Councilor Collins and I proposed an override of $12 million in 2022 because we knew the structural underfunding of our city. That was tabled by a rule that then pushed it past the deadline and made it moved by another Councilor at the time. and fiscal 23 and 2023 for fiscal 24. We proposed, uh, to three charter amendments, which would have we felt better address the budget process. Um, those were passed by 6 to 1 margin, but we're not submitted to the state House. Mayor did not want to move those forward. And again, I think Many of the elected officials in this community were elected because they clearly messaged the reality of structural underfunding of our schools and our city departments. We know there is not enough money to do the job. The reason there is not enough money, piece of it, is that we've never done an override in 44 years. Piece of it is we don't have as much development as fast as scale as we want, right? I'm not saying that those answers can't both be true at the same time. But we are where we are. And 1 of those things takes 5 to 10 years. 1 of those things takes much less time. Um, and we believe can actually affect this fiscal year. Um, in the future, I mean, again, we've been, we've spent what meeting are we on Councilor Collins meeting? No, no, maybe 7 for the budget. But what meeting are we on the zoning? five of this term and we did a whole zoning recodification last term and we've approved multiple plan development district projects that have come before this council because this council has been focused last term with a very different membership this term with a different membership on the idea that this community should grow and that growth needs to be an essential piece of our revenue strategy. So we're there. We have been pushing very hard as a council to have more resources in our finance to budget department so that we have more transparent and open budget planning so that our schools and our city finance departments are not so strapped that they're so worried about the next two weeks that we can't think about the next two and 20 years. So that's work that we have been doing, and it's essential work. We are now at the point I was worried we would be when I saw the fiscal 21 budget in the first six months of COVID, which is a fiscal cliff. That means if we do not find revenue now, jobs lost. Now, without that new revenue, we can have a debate, and the council has a role, not on the school side about this, about who we want to fire. I don't think any of us want to have that discussion. We could find $5 million in the budget, but it's 50 people in the schools or 50 people somewhere else, basically. That's the position we're in now. And looking back at the past is not going to change that, although I do think we should look to the past so that we don't repeat the mistakes in the future. So I hope that we can all at least agree on the fact that we don't want to fire people. Any further discussion by members of the council on the mentor public schools budget Councilors.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for our Jerry. I appreciate you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. With all due respect, I believe that we will have something for this council and the people of the city of Medford to consider that will include all the data that you're talking about. The presentations that you're talking about, that is the intent. Certainly, I was here two years ago, right? I think we should have been having that conversation two years ago. Councilor Collins and I put something forward to have that conversation. We are now in dire straits and we are having that conversation, but I believe that what we will present is fully scoped and has that information and everyone can get behind it because that's what we're talking about here. I've actually seen in the past two and a half weeks incredible unity among people who often disagree about the fact that the impact of the budget allocation versus the need of the schools would be devastating among people who don't often agree. I've had conversations, phone calls, emails, social media, all of that. So I believe we will get there. And again, I think the facts support both of the cases that have been made here. When you look at the new growth numbers, they go on DLS back to 2003. We're not talking about five years of lack of growth, we're talking about 40 years of lack of growth. But the last three years since we started our zoning conversation are the three highest in the history of the city. So we're making that work. We're talking about also on the override side, never done it in 45 years. So I agree with you, we need to do differently. This council, as I believe, including all of us, has been trying to change the tone on development and growth by updating the zoning recodification and implementing our zoning project, change the tone on budget by passing the city's first ever budget ordinance. And just speaking from the perspective of the financial task force, sometimes I feel caught in a catch-22 of, do we not say anything until we have everything fully baked so we can answer every question that you just asked, Councilor Scarpelli? Or do we say everything before we have any answers so that everyone sees every question we've had to ask? And I think it's, in many cases, an impossible choice. and also a choice that is not just the choice of myself and Councilor Collins, but of the group. So we're working on it. What you described is my goal, and I hope that I will be able to present to this Council exactly what you described soon, because I believe that is my responsibility and the faith entrusted in me by the members of the Council and elected me President and by the voters of the City of Bedford by electing me as a Councilor. So that is my goal. And with that, I'll go to Vice President Collins, and then we can hopefully go to members of the public. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Any further questions or comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, we'll go to members of the public. Thank you very much Madam Superintendent, Mr. Finance Director, much appreciated.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record please, feel free to sit and use the microphone. And if you're on Zoom and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Ian. Any further comments by members of the public on the Metro Public Schools budget. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: We used free cash the year before, too. The year before, too? Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: That was how many through the Bs, five?
[Zac Bears]: We got through the Bs and that was five?
[Zac Bears]: Braintree's another one. We didn't even get through the Bs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Councilor Scarpelli, I was going to recognize you already as you had a point directed through me. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to take the spirit of compromise and just say a little bit about what I disagree with both of you about. And first thing I want to say here is I appreciate, but there are many staff in the city who do not live here the chief of staff was with us for four hours at fire stations on Saturday, came here. I don't question her devotion to serving the city, even though I may disagree sometimes. We have disagreements. We all have disagreements. I'll go first with just some additional context on the budget. I appreciate you adding that. Madam Chief of Staff, I just want to also add when you mentioned the $7 million FY23 gap of the one-time funds we used that year, that was a major driver of Councilor Collins's and my proposal for the override at that time. I do respect that we were able to not use one-time funds in future years, but also there were things cut between the initial FY23 proposal and then the final budget. That was presented to us because of that use of one time fund so that means that there were things that the city was doing and probably the schools, maybe as well, depending on the process a little different that we weren't able to do, because we were trying to reduce that reduction on one time fund so that's really where I think many of us are coming from on the structural underfunding. And then the other piece is I really appreciated you starting to list the overrides that all these communities are doing across the state because we do have a common financial fiscal issue across the Commonwealth and across the country with the ARPA expiration. We did use some one-time funds for FY 24 on the school side with ESSER. I know we are all aware of that, but that, you know, it wasn't a structural gap in the general fund, but it was a structural gap in a sense that we, you know, I remember June 21st, Councilor Scarpelli was talking about the 20th. On the 21st, I had an event and I said, we need to work together to keep as many of the ARPA and ESSER positions as we can on the budget. Mayor was present there as well. And work has been done. I mean, I am impressed, especially on the ARPA side, how much we're able to keep on. So I do want to acknowledge that. But I think the other piece of it, and it's not really a disagreement with anyone here, I think the other piece of this part of the fiscal issue that we are all seeing in commonality is cost growth. We are seeing huge over the last two years, a huge increase in costs that is devaluing the amount of revenue we have. When Councilor Leming talks about However, the last 45 years, because two and a half hasn't kept up with inflation, we have less money. That has accelerated over the last two years significantly. Councilman was using a CPI price deflator. That doesn't actually reflect government purchasing their price deflators for government because government purchases very specific things. not the things that a person, you know, we're not buying a lot of bread every day, necessarily, as a percentage of our budget or food. We're buying concrete, we're buying health care, we're buying, you know, pensions, and we're paying salaries, right? And those things have been going up really significantly. So that's just the other piece of context that I really think is important to add And when we talk about the fiscal picture of all these communities, and especially the reason why the override and the need for additional immediate revenue is so much more dire today than it was even two years ago, is that the costs are just out of control. And when costs are going up like that, government, we can't keep doing more with less. That's what we're seeing. If we want to, quote unquote, keep it tight in the belt more, Now we're not talking about, I believe Sherry said, working around the edges. We're talking about core programs of the city and schools. That's where we're at. Now where I just want to point to Councilor Scarpelli, we bring up Malden a lot. Malden gets $65 million a year in net revenue from the Commonwealth. Their Chapter 70 allocation is tens of million dollars more than us. They get $65 million, we get $20. Their new growth the last four fiscal years has been almost a million dollars less than the city of Medford. So it's not a comparable community. Malden is treated very differently by the state and isn't growing as much as we are on the new growth numbers. So, you know, I just wanna bring those facts to the table, that context to the table. And again, say that I really understand the frustration everyone has with the uncertainty, understand the frustration of the public, of our educators, of fellow members of this council, of members of the school committee who are not part of the financial task force, where we have not said this is our plan yet. And we have not presented a plan and had that debate yet. It is coming very soon. We are at the zero hour. We are at the decision point. And I believe that we will present something that we can all see the details of, have those details discussed and debated, and then bring this community together to vote for in the fall to say that we're gonna address these serious financial challenges that we face. So I appreciate the perspectives of everyone. I think we've had a healthy discussion generally. And with that, Mr. President, I just have one new piece of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing none in the chamber, I do see one hand on Zoom, Jess H. Jess, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, you will not be able to ask her questions directly. You can make comments. Generally, the mayor presents the budget at the budget meeting when the comprehensive budget proposal is submitted.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there would be drastic cuts that would be devastating to our community.
[Zac Bears]: We would not have the funds to fund our schools.
[Zac Bears]: We've discussed extensively how Proposition 2.5 and cost growth has reduced what those funds can buy.
[Zac Bears]: Um, there's the mayor and the financial task force have announced a proposal to do so. Yes, and we plan to put out the details as soon as possible.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments from members of the public in the chamber? Seeing none, I will go to Charlene Douglas. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Douglas. I just want to say that it is my highest priority as council president that any proposal for an override or a debt exclusion has all the information needed and that there is the, obviously there is the public process to propose one, there is the public vote, but that is the work that we are doing and I intend to continue doing. And I'll leave it at that. Any further discussion on the Medford Public Schools budget by members of the council or members of the public? Seeing none, Planning Development Sustainability, Director Alicia Hunt. I don't know if you've been watching our previous six meetings, and thank you, Madam Superintendent, Mr. McHugh, once again, and all the residents watching, we are working on this. We have basically our processes that I'm going to read the top lines for the overall budgeted amount and the headcount, and then read through the change sheet, and then we would love for you to share, fill in any gaps, share your budget narrative, and also we would love to hear about Items you did not request are not included in this year's budget request that you plan or would like to see in the future. We understand it's a difficult budget year, but we do want to hear about what we are not doing right now that we would like to be doing. So with that, I will go through quickly. Planning and Development Sustainability Fiscal 24 Budget $779,084. Fiscal 25, $812,897.91 for an increase of $33,813.91. There's a change in head count from eight to 11. That is two part-time interns and that part of the full-time climate planner is moving from a grant to the general fund. And basically all of that is fixed cost increase with the COLA for non-union positions, moving over that climate planner position and some increase for maintenance and dues and subscriptions. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Director Hunt, for the Planning Development and Sustainability Budget.
[Zac Bears]: So you shifted 10 and cut 20?
[Zac Bears]: Anything new you'd like to do that's not in here in future fiscal years?
[Zac Bears]: So seed money for grant funded projects would be a key priority additional.
[Zac Bears]: If you had more, you could get more grants.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Bob has left. I'm just gonna make my one comment, then I'll go to, does anyone want to have a question? Okay, then I'll just make my comment anyway. Bob's not here, but this is really a message for Bob. Maybe we can include it in the report. I just love how few line items are in your budget. I think we're at like 12 or 13. I love that. It just makes it easier. It's everything has a name that I can kind of at least understand and I don't have to ask for an extra explanation. I understand some of that is gap and some of that is state determined and whatever, but. I just think it's a really clean budget where I understand what everything means and that doesn't mean that the information isn't there for every other department, but to me it is a model of naming conventions for ordinary expense line items. So as an extreme nerd, I will close there. Any further questions on the planning development sustainability budget for the director? All right, we'll go through the boards. Rapid lightning speed.
[Zac Bears]: I've got Board of Appeals. And it's looking like that's going up 1350.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 11,150 last year to 12,500 this year because we increased the size of the board of appeals to avoid any quorum issues, I believe was the main reason. Yes. Community development board, no change. On board of appeals or community development board?
[Zac Bears]: Energy and environment is an unlimited number of people, right?
[Zac Bears]: We will take someone else's free labor for our... If you have an expertise and you want to work, let's do it. Yep. Great. All right. So if those questions are answered, I saw no change for Community Development Board. Looks like a small stipend reduction on the conservation commission.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 8200 to 7500. Yeah, got it. Historic District Commission, it looks like A stipend is proposed and there's been a shift from special projects to the stipend and to professional fees?
[Zac Bears]: Who in your office is going to take that on?
[Zac Bears]: And that's significant. Yeah. Something that this council has discussed prior sessions, prior years, try to get some uniformity, some equity across all the boards and commissions. Look at all of them because it seems like it's just we make one and we set this. And then 20 years later, we make this and we set this. So I think when we're not triaging the budget, that is something this council is interested in if we have the time to get there.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Historical commission, we have, it was FY 24, $38,050, FY 25, $35,000, it looks like just a reduction in professional fees and a reduction in the unclassified line item, which I believe was a grant match of some kind.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And Bicycle Commission, $1,500 last year, $1,500 this year, no change. And that's for supplies and stuff.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions on the Planning Development Sustainability Department or the boards and commissions which it helps to coordinate? Seeing none, thank you, Director Hunt. Any further questions or motions in this committee of the whole meeting, which is our final budget preliminary meeting number seven. I should have led with that last one. Budget seven on the motion to adjourn. We do not, we have, we believe that on this timeline, the 31st was the deadline. We believe we've met that by getting us with this being the last meeting. I'm seeing a nod, yes. So that should be our goal, which is great. And the last thing I'll say is Celtics 92, Pacers 88. On the motion to adjourn of Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Yeah, they got back pretty fast. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes.
[Zac Bears]: That's a year ago.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the third time.
[Zac Bears]: So I'm Brian Zarthur. I'm the applicant for the Great American Beer Hall, but I am going to hand this off to Michael Giuliano and Ben Minnix of Eagle Brook to explain the changes we had to make.
[Zac Bears]: That's great.
[Zac Bears]: People can turn left out of Atlas.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, yes, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, I mean, I don't mind applying for access out the back, but I just don't want it to take it as a condition to hold me up on my CEO. Like we're, I'd say, I don't know, 70, 75% of the project right now are set to open in July. But that was something I will do. It's just, after going through the MassDOT process, it's timely.
[Zac Bears]: We're still doing that though, don't we meet all the conditions with the mass DOT, what we're doing there, so we didn't have to do the side streets?
[Zac Bears]: We're doing the solar light, number two on the list. If you go down, we're doing that. It wasn't all the conditions.
[Zac Bears]: Well, what about what's going to, if we go to two on the list, we're doing that. So I feel like we're, we're, we're going above and beyond and I shouldn't be part of this.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So I guess my ask is to not do one because we're doing two.
[Zac Bears]: And it sounds like MassDOT- Yeah, if you look at the condition below, it's the solar paneled traffic, which we are doing, so.
[Zac Bears]: I'd prefer to stay here all night if we could. I don't want to have to stop the project tomorrow.
[Zac Bears]: We didn't have the approval from DOT until April 17th. As soon as I got approval, I emailed him. I didn't know if that was going to be approved or not. And I believe you were a part of the The last phone call with I. So, when I became aware of the new plans, I also thought I submitted this for my building permit. If this is the same layout that the city signed off on my building permit.
[Zac Bears]: But I didn't have approval from DOT in February. If I had approval from DOT, I would have submitted that. I had no approval from DOT. As soon as I got approval, I submitted it even way before back in September 5th. Our building permit is based on this design.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to, I talked to Owen about it. I have my guys. Eagle Brook has been working with Owen this entire project. We've done everything the right way.
[Zac Bears]: So I have no control over mass dot. I had no say in these changes. I did not want to make any of these changes. I didn't want to come back here tonight to do this. I was fine with the acceptance from last year. I have no control over MassDOT.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to come out tomorrow and see it, we're on a July 11th opening, so.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, absolutely. Yeah, I hope to get access out the back. I actually wanted to do it originally and Victor Schrader actually told me to, you know, have everything go on Mystic App. So I will absolutely try and get access out the back. I really like that.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: And I'll keep you updated every step of the way, like I did with DOT.
[Zac Bears]: No, thank you. Thank you so much. Uh, I just, I like to think I'm passionate, but I know it comes off as something else.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole. May 15th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. 7 present, 0 absent. Meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Fiscal 2025 Budget as part of our annual budget process. This is Preliminary Budget Meeting No. 6. And we have the following departments present. Bonds and Interest, Debt Service, Elections, Electrical, Facilities, Fire, Information Technology, Law, Parking, and Public Works. At the request of Councilors, we will be taking the Fire Department first, and then the Parking Department, and then the DPW, and then we will go in alphabetical order. So I apologize to the Law Department. With that, we'll start with the fire department. We have Fire Chief Evans with us. Basically how we've been doing this is I'm going to read the budget and the difference between the prior year. I'm going to go through the change sheet on the second page. If there's anything that I missed or that you want to state, feel free to do so. And then we'd love to hear your narrative about what the department has been doing in fiscal 24 and what the plans are for fiscal 25. And after that, we'll go to questions from Councilors and then questions from the public or comments from the public if there are any. So does that sound good? Good. I know it's your first rodeo up here, so welcome. We're happy to have you. Medford Fire Department fiscal 24 budget was $14,536,023. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $15,126,017.29. Fiscal 24 budget was for 123 positions. Fiscal 24 budget was for 123 positions. Fiscal 25 budget is also for 123 positions. The increase is about 4%. And all of the change is in fixed cost growth, where we have, or the increase, I should say, new fire contract increases, step increases in promotions, and increase in the hazard duty pay. And it looks like there are some decreases in a number of line items as well, offsetting So, but the increase is mainly made up of fixed costs, as we have heard for every single department so far. So far, we have only heard two non-fixed cost increases, totaling about $60,000 in a $200 million budget. With that, I'll turn it over to you. If I missed anything, and we'd love to hear what your department's been up to and your plans for the next fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. I'm going to go. First, I want to say thank you for your presentation. And we did have Lieutenant Marcellino present a lot about the SAFER grant, about time has gone from even four to six weeks ago. So we did hear about that and really impressed by that work. And the trucks as well, you know, Chief Friedman was here talking about the 800 day timeline. And that's why we did approve the free cash allocation, even though it hasn't been spent yet, just to get in the queue. So I'm really glad.
[Zac Bears]: We heard more, but if she if she's welcome to share, I just want to go to the Councilors with their questions for you first. But go to Councilor Leming, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro. Anyone over here? No, not yet. Okay. And I think Councilor Scott probably has some questions too. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: It's already been budgeted for. There's a free cash appropriation approved by the prior council, so it's not in this budget.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not 100% sure on that, do you? I would have to check the specifics of the contract. I know we had to approve, they required for the order us to have approved that the money would be spent. I'm pretty sure it's an invoicing issue, like we'd get an invoice and pay it. That's my understanding, but I'm not sure at what point in the process they send that. I don't know if they send that after we get it delivered, because I also believe there's some provisions. We get it, and then you guys have to test it out and make sure it's working.
[Zac Bears]: but I don't know, maybe the finance department could, procurement could let us know. Okay, thank you. We throw that in the committee report just to request procurement, let us know the timing of the free cash payment for the two fire engines. Any other thing, any questions, Councilor Leming? No, that was it, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just a quick follow up on that. After the two 24-year-old vehicles, what's the next oldest?
[Zac Bears]: And what generally would be the recommendation of how old the truck should be? When would we start calling it an old truck?
[Zac Bears]: The current batch of five, it was five started in August 23, and they're going to the academy this July.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions for the Fire Department? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, good. Great. All right. Seeing none, I just had one quick question. The 23 per group minimum manning, is that Is that coming from the NFPA? Is that a contractual requirement? Is it based on an NFPA suggestion?
[Zac Bears]: Great. All right. That was my question. Any further questions from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Are there any comments by members of the public?
[Zac Bears]: We love DPW and facilities as well. IT's okay.
[Zac Bears]: It's a laundry list of these podiums. You got it. Mr. Buckley, name and address, record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I just have one. On the NFPA standards, do they also have like a formula for like the size of a city, number of high rises, like how many engines and ladders you should have?
[Zac Bears]: Right, because there's only 23 people.
[Zac Bears]: Is that 17 firefighters?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment from anyone on the fire department budget in person or on Zoom? Did I miss a question? Councilor Leming, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Fellow President, I'm very disappointed that you would demote President Buckley. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We had some solidarity there.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any expense that is being paid out of the DPW budget for the repairs of your vehicles? No. Other than the staffing? No. The fleet maintenance?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. The chief of staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Just for our edification and edification of the public in the future, is it possible to include the prior actuals in the ClearGov presentation?
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: ClearGov had inaccurate information. Inaccurate? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: The actuals data in ClearGov, we discussed this in the last budget, was not all uploaded correctly. So the budget data, like what was the budget for fiscal 24, the budget amounts were correct. But my understanding is that actuals data was not all accurate that was uploaded. Because if you look at it, there's like a fiscal 21 in there where it says the city spent like $50 million. That's obviously not true.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, there was definitely some issues with the information that was uploaded, and we did talk about it last year, and we've already talked about it this budget cycle about making sure that whatever is put up there is accurate. Very good.
[Zac Bears]: And hopefully that there's a lot of it for many prior years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, seeing no hands raised and no one at the podium for the Fire Department, we're going to move to the Parking Department. We have Director Morrison with us. Director Morrison, I'm going to quickly read the budget figures and then you can correct any mistakes that I make. Oh, you won't make any mistakes. We would love to hear any kind of highlights for this year, things you're planning for next year. And then one thing, which I forgot to ask Chief Evans, but he did give it to me anyway. Anything that you're planning for in the future that wasn't included in this budget? No, and he already got me. You know, you want to come back up? He got he filled it in its staffing it's the engine so we got there but I didn't ask it formally so if there's stuff that's not in here, but that your department needs and is planning for in future budgets we'd love to hear about that too.
[Zac Bears]: So I will just quickly say we have the parking department fiscal 24 budgeted 1,015,559, fiscal 25 budget 951,563.80. That is a reduction of 63,995.20 and about a 6% reduction. There's also a reduction in the headcount from 13 to 12. It looks like the loss of one clerk position. And then there were some fixed cost increases for the, looks like for non-union 2% contract and minor ordinary increases, but also a significant reduction in professional services of 70,000 related to having the new parking meters. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Director Morrison.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the correction.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Okay, floor is yours highlights of the year and plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: You said $2 million down to $8,000.
[Zac Bears]: Well, congratulations to your department and the incredible work that you've done. Thank you. And I'm glad to see that it's being honored as it should be.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Speaking for the tree enthusiasts, all I can say is no Bradford pears.
[Zac Bears]: That's about all I got. We have Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I have some questions. I don't know if the chief of staff or facilities director want to talk about the office space at all in the parking department and we've been able to make.
[Zac Bears]: Understood. I hope in the future we can find a way to, to make some changes. And you know, you say 50,000.
[Zac Bears]: I'm glad we're in such a lighthearted mood this evening, but that landed the way that it did. Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff for the answer. I just had a couple questions you've answered most of them without me having to ask them, which I always appreciate. Just to confirm the suggestion of additional staffing the department was sometime in the future it would be beneficial to have as many as five additional parking and five additional parking folks would allow us to have at least be minimally staffed.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And the LPR, the license plate readers, I just didn't catch it. Are those going in on the parking department vehicles or the police?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And one other thing, and it's come up a little bit, but I just wanted to speak to it directly. You know, ever since we've made this transition, one of the concerns has been the safety of the staff in your department, both folks out in the street and quite frankly, folks at the window. Has that situation improved at all?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you so much. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Great. Thank you so much. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, any comments from members of the public in person or on Zoom? In person, come to the podium. On Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, thank you very much. Director Morrison.
[Zac Bears]: Congratulations again for your hard work.
[Zac Bears]: DPW, you are next. So we will welcome Commissioner McGivern, Engineer Wartella, and any other of the DPW crew if they're wanting to join us.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, let's put a motion and email Mary.
[Zac Bears]: No, on Monday or whenever she's back. Okay, so we're going to go in alphabetical order through your department starting with cemetery. I think we'll just do quick. I'll read it through pause and have questions on each department rather than try to have everybody remember all. or six of them, because I will forget. So starting with the Cemetery Division of the Department of Public Works, we have fiscal 24 budget, $1,059,320. Fiscal 25 budget, $1,118,050.11 for a net increase of $58,730.11. The headcount is remaining at nine, nine fiscal 24, nine fiscal 25. And the growth in that is almost entirely salaries. It's all fixed cost growth, no new programs, no new staff, as well as inflation cost increases for supplies. And with that, what's going on with the cemetery division?
[Zac Bears]: access drive for the Brooks Estate? Correct. Okay, so it's on the north side of the drive, almost entirely, okay. And the remediation on the soil, how's, I mean, I've read the trustees' reports, how's that going?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And I know I'm on the MMA public works committee and a lot of public works folks from around the state talking about how the cost of removing dirt is going up and up, so I'm glad to hear it's mostly not contaminated.
[Zac Bears]: What's that? Should we ask the residents if they want any dirt?
[Zac Bears]: I know. Sorry, Tim. I just couldn't resist. That's OK.
[Zac Bears]: Well, that's not up to me. If anyone asks, that's what I can do. All right, well, that sounds good on cemetery. Any questions from members of the council on the cemetery division, soil removal, et cetera? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public regarding the cemetery division? Great, engineering. We have our City Engineer. Just very quickly, Fiscal 24, the Engineering Division, $495,830.05. Fiscal 25, $543,661.93. Headcount staying the same at a four headcount for Fiscal 24 and Fiscal 25. net increase $47,831.93, and it looks like all of that is fixed cost growth, step increase, clerical unit increase, and the 2% non-union COLA increase. And if you want to share anything additional about engineering, anything you've been up to this past year, and any plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: Great. My only question, or to council's questions. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Thank you. My only question, what maybe in future budgets, not in this budget, would the engineering department be looking for in terms of additional staffing or additional ordinary expenses?
[Zac Bears]: do you expect that level of investment, like given the capital plan that we have now? It's a tough question, but is there a certain threshold, like is there a time in this capital plan where you expect the work is going to be so great that you'll need someone new or would it require a bigger capital budget before we get there?
[Zac Bears]: So just to start. Just a little bit. The first check-in meeting was today, basically. Great. Well, that's great to hear. And I know how hard you guys are working and how much progress we've made already. And it's been really helpful. If folks want to reference our late April public works and facilities meeting where you guys give us the update on the street and sidewalk assessments, I think that's a great, great thing to reference so that we don't have to talk about it now. And really excited that we'll have something similar coming through around our water and sewer infrastructure as well. So thank you so much for your hard work. It's much appreciated. Any further questions for the engineering division, for members of the council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions from members of the public around engineering? Seeing none, in person or on Zoom, we'll go to Forestry Division. Forestry Division, budget fiscal 24, $616,473. Budget fiscal 25, $623,106.94. Five-person headcount in fiscal 24, five-person headcount in fiscal 25. All of the increases, fixed cost growth and salaries based on the DPW contract. Turn it over to you, Commissioner McGiver.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions? Excuse me, on the forestry budget, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions from members of the council regarding the forestry division? Seeing none, any questions or comments from members of the public on the forestry division at the podium or on Zoom? Seeing none, we will move to Highway Division. Fiscal 24, budget $11,624,596. Fiscal 25, budget $12,475,611.23, increase $851,015.23, Headcount 24, headcount remaining at 24 for fiscal 25. And the entirety of this is also, again, all fixed cost growth. We have about 120,000 related to COLA increases and the contract changes for the 24 staff members. And then we have, excuse me, a big increase here in our newly negotiated budget. waste management contract. So we are going from seven. I'm assuming everything in 5293 is the waste contract. Is there anything else in there? You're going from 7938 to 8727? Yes. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Because the new three.
[Zac Bears]: Just so we can clarify that. I want to just point out that that's about a 10% increase, which is more than 2.5%. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. All right. And just on that note, when we move to year three of the contract or year four, whenever the biweekly trash kicks in, is that going to drop our rate? Are we expecting like a reduction at all?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. In terms of the highway division, anything you want to talk about that you've done over fiscal 24 and any big plans for fiscal 25? And again, I just want to note that the trash budget in here is like 66% of the highway division. So when we talk about $12 million for the highway division, most of that is trash removal.
[Zac Bears]: This is the dam at Wrights Pond?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Commissioner for the Highway Division. Any questions from members of the Council on the Highway Division? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Is it four, eight, 12, right? Say again, four in the first year, eight in the second year, 12 in the third year.
[Zac Bears]: I think you may have negotiated that after we last talked.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the three contracts. It's waste management, trash, waste management, recycling, garbage to garden, compost?
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions on the highway division? I have one, Tim. Yes. The reduction in the sidewalk repairs budget from $90,000 to $50,000. Are we making that up somewhere else? How is that going to impact what we can do there?
[Zac Bears]: I know we've talked about it. I just want to bring home a couple of questions and a couple of nuances that have come before me even since we last talked about it. Sure. What's generally the timeline between a temporary asphalt patch and a concrete filling with concrete? How long is that usually lasting right now?
[Zac Bears]: And my other question, you kind of got there, where we have, you know, older trees planted in sidewalks that are basically shortening and narrowing the sidewalk or the roots are uprooting and it's an asphalt patch. How is the department making decisions between forestry and highway and your team around prioritizing saving healthy trees versus allowing for accessibility for people in wheelchairs and other forms of mobility devices. How are we working through that conundrum? Because I understand it's a difficult one.
[Zac Bears]: But certainly not for every single one.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you. When you were in Charleston, did you make it to City Hall?
[Zac Bears]: That's pretty cool.
[Zac Bears]: Wow.
[Zac Bears]: So should we work on that, or? Oh, we have enough horses. Yeah. I just wanted to know that the clerk was there, he might have something to say, but their council chambers gorgeous. So, if you want to.
[Zac Bears]: What do they have, a multimillion dollar Washington portrait in their council chamber?
[Zac Bears]: Paging director Ricky. He said, yes. All right. We're in. Thank you, Tim. Any questions from members of the Council, again, on the Highway Division? Any comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, we'll go to Parks, Parks Division. in fiscal 24, maintaining it eight in fiscal 25. $951,016 in fiscal 24 up to $957,577.56 in fiscal 25 for an increase of $6,561.56, about 1%, and all of that is in DPW contract increases for the salary, so it's all fixed cost growth, and it does look like some of that was obviously offset by some reductions. Commissioner McGovern.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any questions from members of the council regarding the parks division? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public regarding the parks division? Seeing none, that concludes the general fund DPW. So all the departments we just discussed were coming out of the general fund, which the biggest funder is the property tax levy. We're now going into water sewer enterprise fund, which is funded by the water and sewer rate payers. And we have in water sewer enterprise fiscal 24 budget 25,956,537 fiscal 25 budget 26,879,692 dollars and 12 cents. increase $923,155.12, going from a headcount of 21 to a headcount of 20, and that's about a 4% increase in the budget. Most of that is in fixed costs of about $1.1 million, the vast majority of that being the contract increase with the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which is going up $784,517. There are also a number of other contracts going up significantly for $150,000 and $88,000 increase based on the new DPW contract for staff and staff raises. and some increased costs for field work around water mains and stormwater. There's also some new expenses. This is only the third time we've seen that all budget, and it's for two printers, safety equipment, and parts to replace fire hydrants. So with that, again, 1.1 million in fixed costs, 800,000 of that is MWRA. Only 42,000 is a new expense, and it seems for some pretty basic stuff. I'll turn it over to you, Commissioner McGimmer.
[Zac Bears]: So that's going from 2 to 3.
[Zac Bears]: Got it, just so we can make sure we have the right stuff. In front of us, I had it in here as plus one deputy commissioner, plus two ME03, minus one assistant water network admin, minus two maintenance crafts, minus one equipment repair, as that sounds like that's not accurate.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, can you submit to us an updated headcount? Yep. Thank you. My only that was my only question was just, uh. That was I just had a question about that. Um, is the deputy commissioner being paid from the water sewer budget or.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay, any questions from members of the Council on the Water Sewer Enterprise Fund? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Commissioner, are we, and Director Dickinson may have the answer as well. We're not budgeting for a surplus of retained earnings in the enterprise account, correct? So we're not expecting more revenue than we are planning for in expenses? I know we're not in the general fund.
[Zac Bears]: But that's usually because expenses were not made, right? Like we're not saying we're budgeting 27, point for 27 million in revenue, but we're only going to spend 26.5, right? Oh, I see what you're saying.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But the budget, it's a balanced budget for the enterprise.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I just wanted to put that out there just to note that both additional money going to free cash reserves in the general fund or additional money going to retained earnings. It's not that we're budgeting to raise more money than we spend. It's that we're either spending less or raising more than we expect. Thank you both. Any further questions on the water sewer enterprise fund from members of the council? Any questions or comments from members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, I just wanted to note that if there are significant changes to any of the divisions, we may have you back after the budget proposal goes out. Not that we're expecting them, but who knows? So just because it's a new process and you're here earlier than normal, we appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Tim. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Owen. Next we have right on topic debt service bonds and interest Yes, so this is one of the places we have two numbers we have our general fund debt service and our water and sewer fund debt service and General Fund Debt Service budgeted fiscal 24 $5,090,533.77. Fiscal 25 proposed $5,391,318.49 for about an increase of $300,000. Water and sewer fund debt service fiscal 24 budgeted $1,273,968 and fiscal 25 proposed $1,743,643.75 for an increase of about $500,000. The total debt service increasing about $800,000. Again, $500,000 from water sewer fund and $300,000 from our general fund. And it also looks like most of that is increased principal payments. And I will turn it over to Director Dickinson.
[Zac Bears]: Is this keeping the debt service amounts about at the percent target for the budget that you guys set? Was it 3% or 5%? I can't quite remember.
[Zac Bears]: I remember the Collins Center presentation on the capital improvement plan that the goal was to get us to a certain target percentage to increase bond capacity at some point. If you could just let us know kind of where this puts us on that track, on that target. I think that was all the way up through fiscal 29, if I remember correctly. Sure.
[Zac Bears]: understood. And then if we were to do a debt exclusion for major capital project, that means that it wouldn't come out of the general fund debt service, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Right, OK. But that would potentially allow us to plan for other uses for the capital that may have gone to the fire station. Yes. Any other questions from members of the council on the debt service bonds and interest budget? Seeing none, any questions from members of the public on the debt service bonds and interest budget? Seeing none, thank you, Director Dickinson. Electrical department. I saw Mr. Randazzo earlier. I'm guessing he went to do better things. Oh, sorry. Nope, elections, give me one second. I think I may have just, I put elections in the wrong place. My bad.
[Zac Bears]: No, no, no, no, no. I saw him here diligently waiting and he is, always at the beck and call I think of all of us. And he's back. Is that all right? Come on, Steve. We'll take you, Steve. I saw you running, so you get to go. Anyone who runs into this room.
[Zac Bears]: No, it's my fault, actually. I had it out of order, so that's on me.
[Zac Bears]: Good evening, Mr. Superintendent. It's great to have you here. Thank you so much for all the work that you do. We know how important it is. So I'm just going to quickly go through the budget for the electrical department. We have fiscal 24, 644,100. Fiscal 25, the new budget at 678,804.84. That's an increase of $34,704.84. The salaries raises coming from the contract and 2% non-union, some fixed cost increases and increases to vacation time and sick time. Some increases in electrical costs that we're paying more for our streetlights and some increase in some meter charges as well, but it's all fixed costs going up. So with that, we'd love to hear from you about what you've been doing this year, your plans for next year.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we think you're electrified.
[Zac Bears]: Any big plans for the upcoming year?
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. On the switch to LED, how many of our lights would you say are LED at this point?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And then on the on the traffic signals, do we have any that are really old that need to be replaced?
[Zac Bears]: All right. Any other questions for Superintendent Randazzo? Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? We are very lucky to have you and grateful for your work. So with that, I'm just going to see if there's anyone from the public who would like to ask a question. Seeing none. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, elections, sorry for that, it's my bad. And early in your tenure, I apologize for that as well. We have our new elections manager and the chief of staff here. Are we in week two?
[Zac Bears]: All right, so I'm sure you got it all handled, you know every detail. I just want to thank you for being here. We have had, you know, we, this council voted a couple years ago to shift to this model of an independent elections department under an elections commission, and we've been working with the administration around that. We've had some great points of agreement, some points of disagreement, but we are, you know, we are really grateful. You know, we had some conversations earlier to be like, let's call it elections department. That's a great thing to make it clear that the commission is just overseeing and you guys are the elections department. So, but yeah, I just wanted to give some of that context. I'm sure, you know, it's a pretty new department independent, although served many years with this clerk and others as the registrar voters. I'm going to read through quickly basically the budget summary, then we'd love to hear so far from, and also wanna thank Chief of Staff Nazarian, who has been running elections for a little bit now. Just go through the budget, hear from both of you about what's been happening in fiscal 24, your plans for fiscal 25, anything you think this department needs that wasn't able to get into this budget, but maybe need in the future, and then we'll go to questions from members of the council. So fiscal 24 budget, $340,196. Fiscal 25 budget, $328,629.20. This is a decrease of about 3%, $11,566.80. Decrease is caused by having one fewer election in 2025, fiscal 25 than fiscal 24. So the salary line for seasonal and overtime seems to be reduced. excuse me, reduced, and also this decreases offset by increases from the contract and ordinary expenses due to inflation around fixed costs. The headcount is remaining three, I believe that's two full-time, one part-time, and that's staying the same over the two fiscal years. So with that, I'll turn it over to both of you.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I'm certainly interested to hear what you think is a more contentious electoral environment.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. Any questions to Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I just had one question. Oh, sorry, Justin. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no. I mean, I think it remains to be seen to me. Obviously, things are getting done, and I appreciate the update and transparency. I just think it remains to be seen. We'll see how these upcoming elections go, given that this is the budget we're looking at citywide. It makes it a little tougher to say, let's add two positions in the elections department. That'd be the most of any department in the whole city. But I certainly still have some outstanding questions of if the staffing level is sufficient for the level of work, or if there needs to be additional budgeting around the part-time and the seasonal. that. I respect that it's a moving target. Um and respect that, uh, your leadership and you know, we'll see. We'll see how it goes. And I trust that there will be an honesty that if there is more needed that you'll come to us with the need and then I respect that. So, um, my question was actually around more Councilor Leming's question just around the voter list. Um you know, it does seem to be getting up there. You know, I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, but do you think that the updates to the state registration system or any work that you guys are planning to do maybe after these two elections might weed out some of the folks who have moved away but might still be listed and maybe they moved out of state so they didn't re-register in Massachusetts so the state system isn't pulling them out of Medford and putting them somewhere else, those kind of things?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, there was an error in 2021, where people were moved, marked inactive inaccurately, and then all marked active. And I don't know how the backend of the system works, but could that maybe have restarted a bunch of four consecutive year clocks at that point?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions on the elections department? Seeing none, any questions from the public on the Elections Department? Seeing none, thank you so much and welcome to Medford.
[Zac Bears]: Facilities Department, Director Riggi, thank you for sitting it out.
[Zac Bears]: And the rivalry between the Council and IT grows. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. I saw we forced Rich to eat some food. He's so bored and hungry, he went for the food. Welcome, Mr. Iggy. Facilities department. We'll go. I'll just go through it. You've watched everyone else. You know what's up. Fiscal 24 $1,000,619,513 fiscal 25 $1,000,865,594 one head count. Fiscal 24, that's you. One headcount Fiscal 25, that's you. Looks like about a 15% increase, all of that being essentially fixed cost growth. A little bit of an increase because of the non-union salary. Utility costs, electric and gas prices going up, that's a budget of 100 increase of $140,000. And then the cleaning contract increased $100,000. And that's really it. So if you want to share about what you've been doing fiscal 24 plans for fiscal 25, and then anything that isn't in this budget that you think may be needed for your department in the future, either new staff or other expenses.
[Zac Bears]: And was that about concrete or weather?
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Is that 18 including the schools?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think there's personally, I think there's great opportunities for synergy there, but. We will leave the law for another day. I have a question. Any other questions? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. My only question... Oh, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: My only question, do the new windows come with drapes?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, aesthetically we should do some, I agree with that. I thought we should keep the ripped one, though. I've been focused. I'll bring that to the... Everyone else has been talking. Chevalier, $32,000 staying flat. Is this all funded through casino money or half funded?
[Zac Bears]: Any other questions for facilities in Chevalier? Any questions? Oh, sorry, go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions? Any questions from members of the public? Rich, do you have any questions for Paul? None that you can say publicly. All right, I think that's all we have. Thank you so much. We really appreciate the work that your department does, that you do. Information technology. I like the coat. It's good. It's looking good.
[Zac Bears]: I'm sorry. Dinner for rich. Is that really true?
[Zac Bears]: In cases where you do have urgent plans, always feel free. We will accommodate. I give 24-7 for City. I don't have a life other than servicing its needs. Just don't tell HR.
[Zac Bears]: Aren't we all? Adam, if you could be... Oh, you have a presentation?
[Zac Bears]: This Rattler is getting two beaded. I love it.
[Zac Bears]: Director Lane, thank you very much for your thorough presentation.
[Zac Bears]: A model for all of us. Any questions for members of the Council? Councilor Leming, then Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: It's just retro.
[Zac Bears]: Great, any other questions for Councilor Iya, Councilor Collins?
[Zac Bears]: I just want to personally thank you for all the assistance you've given to us here. Emergency assistance, not emergency assistance. There's a much better digital setup up here now for chairs of the council, council committees, school committee to you know, be working on Zoom, managing it, there's a physical hard connection in case the Wi-Fi goes out. So making this kind of a foolproof setup up here as best as possible, even though I'm sure we try to file it up as much as we can. And that's just been really great. So really thankful for that. Also for working with Kevin Harrington and myself on some of the consulting us on the audio visual upgrade and work in the clerk's office as well. So I just wanted to really thank you for that. And next time, especially if you're bringing slides next year, I may not remember this, but I hope you remember it. You can go first. So if you're on big, long night, seriously, and you've reminded me that I said it, if I'm still the president, fingers crossed, that's a commitment I'm happy to make.
[Zac Bears]: put it in your calendar, mostly because I want everyone to come with a PowerPoint. I think that's a great thing. I'm surprised nobody does. Thank you so much. Are there any questions for members of the public? Seeing no members of the public present in the chamber or on Zoom, you are free to go. Excellent.
[Zac Bears]: And if we did make you miss dinner, I do apologize. Last department of the night, law department. Chief of staff Nesarian representing the administration. Law department budget, fiscal 24, $552,403. Fiscal 25, $530,035.80. Head count going down from three to two, minus 4% growth. The decrease is due to the reduction and removal of the assistant city clerk and some minor reductions in ordinary expenses. There is an increase in the City solicitor salary increase in the budget for outside legal counsel. Chief of staff Nazarian. That's why I said assistant city solicitor, right? Oh, sorry. Assistant city solicitor. My apologies. What a night. But yeah, so the removal of the assistant city solicitor position, taking the full-time head count down from three to two. And so with that, we'll go to the chief of staff for, further presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Any requests for the narrative or objections to the narrative? Does anyone want to hear it? seeing those very broad, very broad.
[Zac Bears]: I do want to say that that is certainly no comment on the wonderful work of Jada Spencer, our office manager and confidential secretary. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Got it. Okay, questions from the council. Councilor Collins, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Vice President Collins. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: We're going back to Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I don't wanna get into... I'm gonna work hard on what I'm about to say. I think there are other ways to address the school funding issue that do not include this cut. I think we are still discussing that, and I'll leave it at that for that element of it. I definitely don't support this model. I certainly wouldn't support a fully outsourced model. I will say that in conversations with council who work for the firm that we are outsourcing to, there have been mentions that the model we are using is unorthodox. I would think that they would benefit from us moving to that model and for some of those councils to say that they would see an in-house model at least partially being more of a I don't want to say recommendation, but I've heard from members of the legal team that we work with that that element is important. They think that there's a lot of value there. So, you know, that's really where I'm at on it. I think we had a budget agreement two years ago that was predicated on having two full-time staff members in the law department. I do not think that that, I do not think the circumstances of this budget abrogate that agreement. And I certainly don't think that I think there are other ways to find the solution that we're seeking to find by removing this position. I also don't think that 78,000 is enough at this point to hire a qualified assistant city solicitor, so that's another discussion. But, you know, I just think that there's a lot of work that I think this council has been put in a position of not having in-house council that has put us in difficult positions in the past. I think we work our best with council. I think we're very judicious with trying not to reach out to council because we understand that there could be added costs to all of that. I think basically the way that all of that works has put this council in difficult positions at certain times and having in-house council, a city solicitor, And I'll just add that there have been a variety of processes and procedures that have been drawn out in terms of codification and of ordinances. And again, it's not a comment so much on any failing of a person as much as it is that there's no lawyer in this building that you can walk up to their office and say, hey, do you have five minutes? And know that that's gonna be the position and opinion of the city. And I think that that's an incredibly important thing to have. So I'm glad to see the increased salary here. I hope that that attracts a qualified candidate. I think losing the other full-time staff person in the department may detract a qualified candidate from wanting to come here, knowing that they won't have an assistant. So those are really my main concerns here. I, my preference would be not even a path in the future, but to just have a level staff funded budget here. If it gets, uh, if it's a, if it's a take back at the end of the year, like it has been the last three fiscal years is a take back at the end of the year. Right. Um, so, or maybe I'm not using the right term, but, uh, um, yeah, I just think that this is, I don't think that using this department's budget, to address the problems that are being stated is the most judicious course. And I'll leave it at that. I'm hopeful that we can continue to work collaboratively through the process and understanding of the deep underfunding of the schools and find an alternative to changes in the law department structure. Instead, find an alternative to that as we look to close the gap on the school funding. in the absence of being able to do that, I think some commitment in future budgets that this would be a key priority and that we would look to bring back the second full-time person potentially at a more competitive rate would also be potentially a path that we could take. Although that's sort of speaking for myself. So that's where I'm at on this. It has been certainly a top priority of the council, a major issue and a major question that we've been hearing. So There are a lot of places that I would be more than happy and willing to look to address the financial issue. I think this is one where it's really tough to do that. So that's all I'll say from my perspective. Any further comments by members of the council on the law department budget? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I just have one more question. Will there be a cap change presented to the council to reflect the salary change proposed? And would that come with the budget and with an effective date of July 1, something like that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Yeah, I think just thinking through in my head, that's probably the best way to do it, then we avoid any sort of chapter 40, whatever 43 issues. When I give you the floor back, I know we all just said a bunch of stuff.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief. And I appreciate that. I think what you said highlights, though, the difference. Especially for us. The CPA manager can go ask KP Law for something, but a Councilor has to ask me to ask you to ask them. Right? So it's a different... We don't even have... the same access to legal counsel. I mean, you haven't denied access and I'm not implying that, but I'm saying that the process for us is like two more steps than it might be for a non-department head staff person.
[Zac Bears]: One step more.
[Zac Bears]: That's kind of the point I'm making though. You know, I don't think that Because we are members of a legislative body, it limits our rights to reach out to city staff members or to independent resources for research. But I don't think we need to debate our theories about that tonight. More my point is that we make the law. And right now, we are making laws often without a lawyer in the room who is there to serve us. We can ask for it. We work around the schedules of KP Law. They are often very flexible. Again, I'm not trying to point fingers at individuals There's a difference between having someone who represents and works, is paid by just the city of Medford, who works in an office at Medford City Hall, who can build a relationship and grab a snack with a department head or a staff member or sit around a table with the city council in the committee room or here. versus people that we see on Zoom every so often. I know Janelle Austin pretty well now, but I know her now about as well as I knew Mark Rumley or Kim Scanlon. And I've worked with Janelle for four years. I worked with Mark Rumley for zero days. And I worked with Kim Scanlon for a year and a half. And some of that is, hey Kim, in the hall. And some of that is walking into the clerk's office and having a conversation you didn't expect to have that generates a different result. I think, to be honest, Same reason that there's a policy where remote work is not the standard operating procedure of the city, right? It's because having the people in the place doing the thing is generally perceived, especially in this work, to be of government, of serving people and engaging with people, to be the better model. So that's my position as an individual Councilor. I strongly and firmly believe that while KP Law, I would be fine with KP Law at $138,000 if it also meant a city solicitor at $160,000 and an assistant city solicitor at a competitive salary. I got no problem with that. I respect KP Law's specialty and expertise. I just think that there's a fundamental difference between an outsourced legal counsel and an in-house person dedicated to the city of Medford all the time. And I think that it would, make our job as a council as a body easier to know that we're going to have to build that relationship. Every time we're writing an ordinance, we talk to a different person. We have different conversations. We have an hour long disagreement because we don't understand each other's communication style. I mean, it's just, it comes down to like these very personal and, and, but also very tangible realities. Oh, sorry about that. I don't know why my phone is ringing at me. I'm probably telling me I need to go to bed. But in any case, it's just, it, it, It is serving this purpose well enough for us to get work done, but it is not making it easy for us to excel. And I think that has been my experience now in my third term. And I really, I certainly don't think that the more Drastic course suggested is something that we should move towards to say remove this city solicitor position because that'll save another 100,000 for the schools. I think we need to find real sustainable long term solutions and on that question. But I also just think in principle that this is just not the. Certainly not the approach that the council would want, even though I can respect what you're saying that under the current charter, the solicitor reports to the mayor. But I just think that that role in my experience and my conversations with Councilors for many terms of my conversations with people who held the position of solicitor in the past. And in my conversations, as I said, with members of the legal team that we hired to do the solicitor's job right now, there's a lot of value to having that position filled and building that in-house knowledge and interpersonal relationship. So I don't think we're solving it tonight. It's a preliminary meeting. I think that point is incredibly well taken. haven't seen the budget yet, so maybe we'll get somewhere different than this. And I'm glad that we had this conversation now versus having this be a conversation in the middle of June where motions are made that none of us want to make or like. So I'll leave that for another day. Any further discussion on this item, and I will allow you to respond.
[Zac Bears]: Absolutely, and I agree with that. I believe that as you just said, most of them are towns. I'm not aware of a city that does it, I think that was the point that the person I was, and I'm not quoting them and saying unorthodox, that's my description of their words.
[Zac Bears]: And it does. No, and that's very true. And I don't, you know, it sounded like taking it was an option.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that, thank you. All right, well, you know, I don't think we're solving it tonight, but I think all of our opinions have been stated clearly. Does anyone else have any comments? There's literally no one else in the Zoom and no one else in the room, so I won't even ask for the public comment. Motion to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to report the questions from the committee tonight to the administration and to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour?
[Zac Bears]: All right, welcome everybody. We have our wonderful Medford High School Orchestra here. They just won the gold medal from MICA, so congratulations and welcome and we're very excited. Mr. Cheng and the members of the orchestra and Councilor Tseng. We're going to hear some of their great performance and then we're going to have some citations and trophies given out. So congratulations and the floor is yours.
[Zac Bears]: So we're going to start with certificates for our middle school ensemble and I'm going to turn the floor over to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: You should go down there. If you want. Yeah, if you want. You're good there? Stay on the wings, whatever's easiest. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We have one more set of citations to give out, so bear with us. All right, last citation before we start the much less fun city council meeting. I just want to read it really quickly we passed this on April 30. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility students at the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local United States Postal Service mail carriers. Be it further resolved that we invite these students to the May 14 City Council meeting to receive a citation for their fantastic work. We also had from Councilor Scarpelli be it resolved the City Council recognize the amazing work of Savannah McLaughlin and Adam Costello, members of the CCSR, and 5th grade students from the Brooks Elementary School on providing safety whistles for postal workers. We unanimously approve those resolutions and we are excited to offer these citations tonight. And I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli if he would like to say any words.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. If we could invite up Mr. Trotta and Savannah and Adam. First, we'll start with Savannah. The Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council accommodation to congratulate Savannah McLaughlin, member of the CCSR and fifth grade student from the Brooks Elementary School, for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local USPS mail carriers. The realization of this outstanding achievement will undoubtedly lead to successes and accomplishments throughout your life.
[Zac Bears]: Now we have that the Medford City Council takes pleasure in awarding this council commendation to congratulate Adam Costello, member of the CCSR and fifth grade student from the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local USPS mail carriers. The realization of this outstanding achievement will undoubtedly lead to successes and accomplishments throughout your lives. Thank you. You want to say something?
[Zac Bears]: Great job. All right. Great job. One more and then we can take a photo up here. I just want to also say we have a general citation for the Brooke CCSR. So I don't know if Mr. Trotta, you want to accept it on behalf of CCSR, but congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: 10th regular meeting. Medford City Council May 14th 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Everybody please rise. Salute the flag. I pledge allegiance
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to everybody for bearing with us. We just had a fantastic performance by our Medford High School String Orchestra, and we issued citations for the wonderful gold medal of our MHS Orchestra, silver medal by the Medford Middle Schools Orchestra, and amazing work by our Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility. So a good first little bit of a meeting, if you ask me. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records, records, the records of the meeting of April 30th, 2024 are passed to Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve the records, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees 24045 committee of the whole budget April 30th 2024. This is one of our preliminary budget meetings on the 2024 budget on them. Is there a motion to approve. So, the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor. I oppose motion passes. 24-045 committee the whole budget may 1 2024. This was another preliminary budget meeting on the fiscal 25 city budget, is there a motion to approve motion by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. I opposed motion passes, 24-099 committee of the whole. May 7, 2024. This was a meeting that we held for the annual action plan for program year 50 for the Federal Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program. Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-015, 24-069, and 24-073, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, May 7th, 2024. I will go to the committee chair, Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Council, allowing to approve the committee report, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-0C33 and 24-083 offered by Vice President Collins, planning and permitting committee, May 8th, 2024, report to follow. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I believe there's an error on the agenda that is on us. Would you amend to remove the 2-4? We're just, we're just, it's a Claire Blair. There's just one additional paper number. All right. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 24-351 offered by Councilor Leming. Give me one second here. be it resolved, whereas veterans in the city of Medford need a place to live and are often discriminated against when searching for housing. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the veteran services director shall have the authority to offer available funds to entities that choose to rent to qualified veterans. Be it further resolved that this be discussed with the veteran services director and the city's legal representation in committee. I'll turn it over to Councilor Leming. What committee would you like to refer this to? And the intent of this section is to keep these relatively short. So I know there's a proposed agenda here.
[Zac Bears]: All right, on the motion to refer to resident services and public engagement by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Collins. Director Shaw, is there anything you want to add at this time? You've been with us for a while, so I want to give you the chance to speak on this paper and why this issue is so important. Thank you. And you may need to adjust the microphone. There you go.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions on the motion? I'll go to Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng to refer this paper to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Director.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to suspend the rules to take papers 24355 and 24100, seconded by? Second. Councilor Tseng, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24355, review open meeting law complaint. Open meeting law complaint from Deanne Andrasano, dated April 24th, 2024. Acknowledge and review complaint. Discuss council's response to complaint. Vote to take any remedial action if necessary and appropriate. Votes may be taken. We have here an open meeting law complaint summarizing, essentially, that there was a social media post summarizing a previous meeting, and there's a suggestion that that is a violation of the open meeting law. We do have a response from the city's legal counsel here. Please be advised that this office represents the city of Medford carry this KP law to Carrie Benidon, Esquire Director, Division of Open Government, Office of the Attorney General, 1 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA, 02108. City of Medford City Council have a meeting law complaint from Deanna Dersano, dated April 24th, 2024. Please be advised that this office represents the City of Medford, Massachusetts. The Medford City Council, the Council is in receipt of an open meeting law complaint filed by D.N. Andresano dated April 24th, 2024, a copy of which is attached here too as exhibit one. Following receipt of the complaint, the Council requested a brief extension of the deadline to respond, which was granted by the Division of Open Government. On May 14th, the Council met at a properly posted meeting notice for such purposes to discuss the complaint and consider its response. The Council has carefully reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint and following such discussion has authorized this office to submit the following response on its behalf in accordance with General Law Chapter 30A Section 23 and 940 CMR 29.055. Essentially, that's what we would be doing tonight. We're reviewing this response and this would be would submit to the Division of Open Government. Essentially, the process requires that any open meeting law complaint received by the Division of Open Government is received by the City, that the City Council or the body that the complaint is against considers that, and then replies. And I will just read here the main headlines of the response drafted by Council. One, posting a summary of the Council's April 2nd meeting to Reddit did not violate the open meeting law. because the communication was not directed to a quorum of the public body. Two, including contextual information in a social media post did not violate the open meeting law. Conclusion, the City Council respectfully submits that there has been no actionable violation of the open meeting law and considers this matter resolved. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Janelle Austin. And we do have Attorney Austin on the line. I would like to recognize Attorney Austin. If there's anything else you'd like to add, and then we'll hear from members of the Council. Attorney Austin.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Attorney Officer. We go to Vice President Collins and Council Chair Pelley. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and any councillors welcome to send legal questions to me and I can forward them to the administration. On the motion of Councilor Collins to acknowledge receipt of the open meeting law complaint to accept this draft response as drafted, and I'm happy to be the final work with the Attorney Austin if that's part of the motion as well. All right, I'll go to Councilor Callahan after, we have a second on that motion from Councilor Stanton. Councilor Callahan. Oh, okay, got it. All right, on that motion, essentially to say that there was no open meeting law violation, no remedial action is necessary, and we will submit this to the Division of Open Government. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 24-100. Give me one second here. May 9, 2024, by electronic delivery to the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council, City Hall, Medford, MA 02155, regarding various matters of litigation and claims. Dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend your Honorable Body enter Executive Session pursuant to General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21, Subsection A, Subsection 3. to discuss strategy with respect to litigation concerning Ayala et al versus City of Medford, USDC, US District Court CA number 2210115 MPK, Arbella Mutual Insurance Company as suburbia of Joseph de Almeida versus City of Medford, Middlesex Superior Court CA number 2381CV00687, GEICO as suburbia of Van Nguyen of the City of Medford, Council's agenda state that in the executive session notice that votes may be taken. Attorney Thomas Lane will be present to provide the council with guidance on these matters. Thank you for kind attention to this matter. Sincerely Brianna logo. Current mayor motion to enter executive session on the motion of. Councilor Tseng to to discuss strategy with respect to litigation on the following cases. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. We're going to move to executive session. So we will return to open session once that is concluded.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to reconvene by Vice President. We don't need a motion? Let's just be careful. Motion to reconvene by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Vice President Collins. On the motion to suspend the rules for paper 24352 by Vice President Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 2-4-352, petition for a class 2 auto body license, finest auto body. Give me one moment here. Petition for a Class 2 auto body license by Christian Garcia, Finest Auto Body, Inc., 26R, Mystic Avenue, Medford, MA 02155, on file, business certificate, letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, petition, treasurer, building department, fire department, police, health department. Councilor Scarpelli, chair of licensing, permitting, and signs.
[Zac Bears]: Give me a second.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to pull it up on the screen.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Could you point out, this is the map. Can you see the map on the screen up here? This is 26R. This is your frontage here. Where would the cars be parked?
[Zac Bears]: So you would have room inside the building for how many vehicles?
[Zac Bears]: I do have Director Hunt here. I'm going to recognize Director Hunt. Alicia Hunt, Director of Planning Development Sustainability.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has said to me that I believe he concurs with Alicia Hunt that it's a special permit. Right.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: The clerk has also suggested a June 11th.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe after we start doing the process. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: I think, if I could, it sounds like we're going to need some more time on our end. We're going to probably need some coordination again to speak with the city clerk's office and the planning office to make sure that we go through the right process and get you the right permit that you need. One thing that could probably help us with that too, if you could bring maybe some pictures of the space or send some pictures of the space to the planning department and the clerk and that could be included in the packet that we could see where you plan to put the vehicles that you're not using it now where you know just a little bit of a picture so we can understand because yeah you know you're there a lot you know how flood you know the roads are covered with cars yeah yeah thank you appreciate that so um you know i think there's a motion right now to table uh to june 11th um sorry for the delay on that um but yeah if you could take some photos and if you could communicate with our city clerk and our planning department, and Councilor Scarpelli maybe, I don't know if you could, whichever one of you has a business card, if you could share that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, and the clerk's office, you've been working with Annie Kelly, Ann Marie Kelly, I think their number's 781-393-2425 as well. But there's a motion on the floor to table till June 11th by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. So we'll try to get all this worked out behind the scenes and hopefully have you back June 11th. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. Motion to revert to the regular order of business by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor. Opposed. Motion passes. 24-099 offered by the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, Community Development Block Grant Program, Program Year 50, Annual Action Plan. Let me read the legal notice. The public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council on Tuesday, May 14th, 2024. Details posted in the city clerk's office prior to the hearing. The purpose of this public hearing will be to invite the general public and representatives of public service agencies to express comments regarding the city's community development block grant annual action plan for community development and planning. The annual action plan contains the proposed use of community development block grant funds for the program year, which extends from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. The Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability We'll be requesting that the Medford City Council authorize Mayor Brianna Lindell-Kern, official representative of the City of Medford, to submit the annual action plan, applications for funds, and all other assurances and certifications to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City is applying for an estimated $1,252,811 in block grant funds. Funds aren't estimated, and details on the increasing or decreasing of proposed activities and budget can be found within the draft plan. If you need a reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in this hearing, please contact Francis Nwaje by email at fnwaje at metro-ma.gov or by phone at 781-393-2439. And we did receive revised figures as we discussed this at our committee of the whole meeting last week, there was actually an increase of $131,239 from the awarded by HUD through CDBG to the city of Medford. We had the presentation by our public service agencies and we do have attached here the adjustments to the public service agencies, an increase of four, $500 for the community family, our buddy Palin center, an increase of $10,000 for Megan transport LLC, an increase of $2000 for the senior center, an increase of. $185 for the Bedford Public Schools, $5,000 for SCM Community Transportation, $1,000 for the Welcome Project, and $1,000 for the West Bedford Community Center. We do have Laurel Siegel and Director Hunt on. And I will recognize Laurel now if there's anything else you'd like to add to this before we open the public hearing.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So I'll go to Vice President Collins and I'll open the public hearing. Oh, you can open it first. No, you should go.
[Zac Bears]: motion of vice president cons to approve the motion to authorize the action plan seconded by Councilor Sir Kelly. First, I need to open the public hearing. So I want to open the public hearing to anyone in favor, opposed or otherwise to this position, please raise your hand on zoom or come to the podium in person. Let us know what you think of this action plan. So public hearing is open. Laurel, I'm guessing that the city is in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Anyone else who'd like to comment on this public hearing on program year 50 of the community development block grant annual action plan? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative the motion passes. Thank you, Laurel. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. Thank you to all of our applicants and recipients for CDBG funds for the 50th year of CDBG. 24068, Picky's Pizza, 165 Main Street, special permit for hours, continued. Legal notice, their own Medford City Clerk's Office notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. Public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall 85, George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA on April 30, 2024 at 7pm, assumed to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024. on a petition from CS Properties, LLC, DBA Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155 for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 94-7.2.1, to operate extended hours of its business, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155, said site being located in Apartment 1, District as follows. Extended hours of operation requested, Monday to Thursday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., Friday, Saturday, Sunday, 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford MA, call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations. The City of Medford is an EEOA 504 employer. By order of the City Council, Adam Milner to the City Clerk. So we have this continued from our April 30th meeting. We had several communications from residents who were concerned about changes to the hours. I believe the petitioner was able to speak with the chair of licensing, permitting and science subcommittee, Councilor Scarpelli. And I do believe they are present here on the call. I see them here. So I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli, and then I'll turn it over to the petitioner to see if there's an amendment to the request. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Great. The council recognized Ms. Carr from Pinky's Famous Pizza to share if there's been any changes to your request to the council.
[Zac Bears]: All right, so the petitioner has amended the proposal to just have this be Friday, Saturday, Sunday, extended from 11 to 12 a.m. So let's reflect that in the record. Mr. Clerk, you got it? Is there any discussion by members of the council before I open it up?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll ask if there's any, well, if I just could go to the council, then I'll open the public hearing. Any questions by members of the council? Vice President Collins, and then Council Member.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I yell to the neighbors. All right, we'll open up the public hearing. Last thing I'll say is my first job in Medford was a pizza delivery driver, and I'm pretty sure I was making more than what they're paying out of DoorDash and GrubHub, and that was... Definitely. So I appreciate the idea of bringing this back here as good local jobs. So yeah, I'm going to open, well, the public hearing has been open and we continued it from the last meeting. Is there anyone, the now amended proposal is to have extended hours Friday, Saturday and Sunday until midnight. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition or otherwise to this proposal? I believe, Ms. Carter, you are in favor, correct?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Anyone else who'd like to speak, raise your hand on Zoom, and I'll recognize you. I see Mary. Mary, if you could provide your name and address for the record, please. I've just requested an unmute.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. Any further comment on this extended hours permit? Oh, sorry, Vice President Collins, we do have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli. Were you going to comment or make a motion? All right, we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30 and 60 day review and also requesting the code enforcement. So that would be code enforcement report back to us 30 days and 60 days of any complaints. And then also when school is back in, maybe we wanna set a date, maybe October 1.
[Zac Bears]: And also report back October 1st of any complaints from the neighbours on the extended hours. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice-President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in favor of none negative, the motion passes. Thank you all for working through this process and look forward to getting it reviewed and implemented. Next item is 24353, petition for a lodging house license, Tufts University. Petition for a lodging house license for Tufts University located at 28 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155. We have on file letter of compliance, state tax ID, workers' compensation, petition, treasurer, building department, fire department, police, traffic impact report. And the health department we have addressing the council, Rocco DiRico, government relations director, Tufts University, 14 Capen Street, Bedford MA 02155. Councilor Scarpelli, anything that you would like to say before we hear from Mr. DiRico?
[Zac Bears]: Well, we certainly would like some diamonds flowing. We welcome them. And if you have $2.5 million, we need it. That was a joke. Hey, there won't be any traffic tonight. So, you know, thanks for bearing with us for a couple hours. We appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Before we open the public hearing, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you're too late. Councilor Scarpelli already did it. Any further discussion by members of the Council? I just have a question, Rocco. I don't have any community meeting tomorrow night, 630, 6 o'clock on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I saw that. At least five of us can't be there. We have a zoning meeting at the same time. I don't know if the other two folks who aren't on that committee can. But I did want to put that out there. I saw a lot of news about the housing. And I saw something in Tufts Now about some new housing changes that are happening, trying to bring some more stuff on campus. Is the dormitory on Boston Ave still happening?
[Zac Bears]: Okay. And how many units would be added on campus by, I don't know, whatever your timeline is. I don't want to impose a date. Are you sure you have a date with a number attached to it?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other questions, members of the council? And I was, this is a petition on a public hearing, so I'm not opening a public hearing. I just have one more question. Any chance Tufts would support the institutional master plan home rule petition?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I hope someday you'll reconsider. Thank you for the honest answer. Any further discussion on the motion of Council Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's 9.15. All right. 24.074, resolution review annual surveillance report. Be it resolved that the Bedford City Council review the annual surveillance report.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Vice President Collins to receive and place on file the annual surveillance report, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. I think this is you George. Yes, 2324356 resolution to support work to ban equity theft state legislation be resolved. The city council sent a letter of support to our state legislators for their work being done to protect homeowners from unfair taxing practices by cities and towns and the work to ban equity theft legislation. Michael, what do you think of the practice of cities and towns taking the entire value of a home to recover tax debt that is less than the value of the property when homeowners fall behind in their property taxes? Senate docket number 2129, filed January 20th, 2023. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, thank you. And I brought this up with the treasurer, Collector Johnson, a couple of weeks ago. And she said, we're not doing it. The city of Medford is not engaging in that practice currently. And yeah, definitely, I believe this legislation is a response to recent, or maybe not a response to, but parallel to recent court decisions outlawing the practice. So definitely makes sense to me. I'll go to Councilor Leming, then any other councillors, and then we'll open it up to the public.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Kalia?
[Zac Bears]: If you're going to come up and talk about it, if you can share that in the public participation. Great, thank you. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. And I will just add, you know, It's a slightly different thing, and it is not, again, generally an issue in Medford, but the civil forfeiture issue in general is a huge issue of, you know, prior to any sort of legal determination, you know, and this fund, this basically funds county police departments in like Ohio and Tennessee, places, other places in this country, taking private property, people's personal property without the, without any really due process, other than that it's civil forfeiture. So it kind of, to me, is a similar parallel, and certainly something that we don't want to be happening, and certainly something we don't want to be used as a revenue tool. And right now, it's not the policy of the city, but obviously not something that we want as a state law or anything like that. So with that, any further comments from members of the council? Seeing none, we'll go to public participation. First, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Then we have one hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: We can hear you, and thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Mr. Cassanetti. It appears you may have frozen. Are you, are you done Mr. Cassanetti?
[Zac Bears]: All right, thank you. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, is there an amendment to change the number to H4624? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Collins, as amended by Councilor Collins, to change the number to H4624. Mr. Clerk, I'm sorry. All those in favor? I oppose. Motion passes. I skipped over 24354, Resolution Authorize Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee to publish City Council Newsletter. Sponsored by Councilor Leming and myself, be it resolved by the Medford City Council, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, shall I have the authority to draft and approve a regular newsletter. summarizing the activities of the council and can vote to publish the newsletter about our mechanisms available without referring the draft newsletter to a regular council meeting for a vote. For the result of this paper be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee as a standing agenda item. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to approve and refer to resident services and public engagement by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. And I'll just add, yes, I mean, I think, you know, absent an authorization, for example, we, you know, we don't have to do it every term because it carries over. Subcommittee on licensing, permitting, and signs looks at things before they come to the regular council. We've authorized subcommittees and committees in the past to take action without having to come back to the council. So those are things that happen. But it does have to be on paper. If it's not, then Everything that gets reported in the committee is to come back out of committee, and generally that's true for almost every item anyway. This is a communication, you know, we've authorized committees to look at, you know, inviting people to have conversations or go out and look at different sites in the past. But, you know, outside of those kind of more investigatory and communicative things, anything that hasn't processed by ordinance or resolution or something else obviously needs a vote by the full council before it goes into effect. So we're taking a vote tonight. We'll see if it passes to authorize the committee to send those communications. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: And I will note that the two people who are not members of that committee are myself and Vice President Collins. On the motion, all those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion passes. Do you want to be marked as a no?
[Zac Bears]: Oh, all right. Well, no. No meows. It's yes or no here. No. Okay, here we have one present for a compromise public comment. Public comment email Norman Kaplan leaf blower ordinance. I'd like to go on the record as follows. You don't send the fire department to put out 50% of the fire but unfortunately that's what the city council is doing. As I stated after midnight at the tortured city council meeting in March with evidence to prove it battery powered leaf blowers have reached velocity levels comparable to gas versions. In time, and likely soon, the battery models will become even more powerful. Here's an example of the progress in battery technology. The 2024 gas-powered Honda Civic goes 0 to 60 in 9.2 seconds. The Nissan LEAF all-electric 2024 goes in 6.7 seconds. See motortrend.com. Want to go faster? Jump into the all-new electric Porsche Macan, which takes a mere 3.1 seconds, compared to the gas variant at 4.1 seconds. see Danielle's column in the April 25th 2024 Wall Street Journal. Congratulations certainly to the city council for finally curbing and eventually eliminating the toxic emissions from gas leaf blowers. But why on earth has the council elected to do nothing to seasonally restrict, let alone eliminate the year-round dispersal of dirt, dust, animal feces, mold, fungi, pollens, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy metals which can linger in the air for hours after a powerful battery-operated blower has been turned off? If you wouldn't drink a glass of water with any of that stuff in it, I don't know why you would want to inhale it either. Norman Kaplan, 23, Headland Way. Is there any further public comment in the council chamber on Zoom? I will go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and also raise your hand on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: I believe the answer for this lodging is zero.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, all right, sorry, I missed that. Apparently it'll be assessed and taxed at the standard residential rate.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. A happy note. Councilor Calihan. On the motion of Councilor Calihan to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Tseng. I don't think I missed anything. All right. All those in favor? All right. Opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: City Council committee of the whole May 14 2024 Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. 7 present, none absent, this meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole today at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford MA and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the annual budget process. This is preliminary budget meeting number five. The mayor has communicated that the following departments will be present, the library and the police. So without further ado, we'll go in alphabetical order. We'll take the library, we have Director Kerr, and this is a little bit different from previous years. We are meeting with you before. the budget is fully presented. This is, as I said, our fifth meeting, and we're excited to have you. We do have copies of your budgets in front of us, and I've basically been asking four questions of the department. One, what was your budget request? Two, are there any programs or other additions that you didn't request this year that you would be looking at in the future? and then asking you to share kind of the narrative of your budget for your department. And at the end of the presentation, I will just note that if we see a big change from today to when the budget is presented to us, we may invite you back in June for another round. So very quickly, I will just read off here the library budget. For fiscal 24, the budget was $2,012,177. The budget this year is proposed at $2,245,111.90. And the main changes there are in our fixed cost growth category with 104,000 involved in staff increases and moving the office manager from 30 hours to 35 hours. 44,000 also in the staff to ensure that there's a pay increase for the hourly part time and a $90,000 increase in data processing because the cost of tech in our new library is much bigger. than our old library. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and feel free, if you wanna walk through this infographic or share your budget narrative, we'd love to hear what you've been doing this past year and what you're going to be up to next year.
[Zac Bears]: I have some extras here too.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Kerr. Any questions from members of the Council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions for our library director, Director Kerr? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any other questions by members of the council for the library director? Seeing none, I have a few. One, I just want to confirm, there's no headcount increase in the budget as far as I could tell. The only real major change is the 30 to 35 hours for the business manager?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. A follow-up on the part-time hourly salaries. You said that the last time that had gone up was 2019. Okay. And I just want to put it out there. The reason that they were making less than the minimum wage is that technically cities and towns are exempt from the minimum wage law in the Commonwealth. So it was not illegally. Sadly, the laws of the Commonwealth allow that. So I'm glad to see that that's changing. My last question is kind of a three-parter. You mentioned around new staff and programs that you'd be looking for in the future, the program librarian. Could you talk a little bit more about that, what that job does? Has that job existed in the past? And also, are there any other programs or staff that you would like to see maybe in future budgets? I know this is a tough year.
[Zac Bears]: And my last question, you mentioned that some of this is bringing onto the budget items that have been funded temporarily by the Metro Public Library Foundation, part of the new building. Is there anything else that needs to be brought over from that? And also, is there anything that was being funded at the library by ARPA that is being brought onto the general fund?
[Zac Bears]: No ARPA, okay.
[Zac Bears]: Great, that's great to hear.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions by members of the council? Seeing none, is there anyone in the public who would like to comment on the library budget? Any members of the boards of trustees?
[Zac Bears]: Feeling good. All right. Well, thank you then. Thank you very much. We will certainly invite you back if anything changes.
[Zac Bears]: All right. Next, we will go to Medford Police Department. We have Chief Buckley and I will say once again, kind of the framing here. I'll quickly read the budget request. If there's anything I missed, feel free to add on to that. Then we'd love to hear about anything that wasn't requested this year that you'll be requesting in the future. Feel free to add that and share your narrative, and then we'll go to questions from the council. So very quickly, I will go here. We have the Manford Police Department budget. We had for fiscal 24, $14,566,880 budgeted. For fiscal 25, the proposed budget is $14,785,259. And we had FY 24 budgeted total headcount 122, FY 25 total headcount 128. And then the change sheet indicates that the fixed cost growth is $317,217 in full-time salaries, and then about $150,000, maybe $140,000 in a number of other items, court time, education incentive, academy tuition, professional services, and laundry. And then in terms of new expenses, there's some new expenses for data processing and for telephone. And with that, I will turn it over to you, Chief Buckley.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to share a little bit about what you've done, Fiscal 24, any plans or new things you'd like to do in Fiscal 25?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chief Buckley. Any questions from members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll go to Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Thank you guys. Any further questions from members of the Council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I have a few. So just a couple quickly is the accreditation through the post commission. Is that or is it a private accreditation?
[Zac Bears]: Kind of along the same lines, the education incentives a pretty big chunk of your budget. Is that mostly related to officer certification and like on duty related education? Or is it kind of wide open?
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify, so it's if they have the degree, there's an incentive pay, not that we're paying, or is it that we're paying for them to get the degree?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. The recovery coach for fiscal 25, is that staying with the health department? Or I know that was kind of a grant funded and maybe in a tough spot.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I've got two more quick questions and I have a question on the head counts. The professional services, legal fees increase. Is that, is that going, I'm just wondering why it's outside of the law department budget.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so you're getting sued over firearms licenses, basically. Like weekly. Yeah, all right. Maybe not that much, but yeah. And then what is SonicWall?
[Zac Bears]: Cool, yeah, I just didn't, it's got a fun name. All right, my last question is on the headcount. It's kind of a multi-parter. I think Councilor is saying, you answered the question, there's nothing that's ARPA funded that's coming onto the general fund in this budget. We're going from 102 to 107 on patrol and then one dispatcher. And I guess I'm wondering kind of two things. It's described as fixed cost growth, but to me it's new positions from fiscal 24. And I'm wondering if you could just go a little bit more into why that's being considered a not a new position, but a fixed cost change.
[Zac Bears]: That's the patrol.
[Zac Bears]: And so I misread. It's 102 to 107 across the board, not patrol. My apologies.
[Zac Bears]: And the main reason I ask it is it is a difficult year. Um, and it sounds like we're just trying to get half of halfway back to where we wanted, where we were a few fiscal years ago. Um, I just want to raise that point because I think it's important for people to understand what's going on. And in the light of proposals in other departments, I mean, we're talking about net 20, maybe net 40 loss in the school department. We just need to have all the information out there to explain why things are happening the way that they're happening.
[Zac Bears]: I see the effort completely in the money. Some people are going to point to the headcount, you know, and I just think it's important to have a holistic conversation. My last two questions, you said you're at, so we're budgeted for 102 and we're at 97 right now? Yes. And so you're hoping to fill 10 vacancies hopefully if this budget goes through as is?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And then, I think that's it. Do you expect any more retirements or vacancies this year?
[Zac Bears]: And are you having difficulties with the applications getting enough folks in to civil service and to training?
[Zac Bears]: Good. All right. Thank you. I know that was a bunch of questions. It's a big crowd out there.
[Zac Bears]: It's orchestra. The orchestra is coming to perform their statewide winning award winning performance. So want to get them in here as soon as we can. Is there anything else you want to say before I open it up to the public very quickly?
[Zac Bears]: Awesome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chief.
[Zac Bears]: I can go very quickly through that. Traffic supervisors, we're going from 357, 650 to 361, 525. My understanding is that's fixed costs under the union contract, 2%? Correct, yes. All right, any questions on traffic supervisors? Seeing none, on the Traffic Commission, we're going from 27,800 to 30,500. It looks like that's a 2,700 increase in materials. Do you want to speak to that?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Any questions on the Traffic Commission, Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate it. Wonderful. With that, I'll open up to members of the public. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on the Police Budget or Traffic Commission or Traffic Supervisors either in person or on Zoom? You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, thank you, Chief. Thank you, Lieutenant. Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Before we call, we won't call the roll, we'll just do a voice vote. We're gonna have an orchestra performance. We have some certificates to hand out. So stick around, we're gonna move to a different Zoom meeting, but we may not get to some of our business for a little while until we get that done. So I think it's a nice day, a good meeting. And with that, on the motion of Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. See you soon in regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just think, I don't think we should use the word dwelling or family. We should just say unit. And we should, I think we should just define it as one unit on a lot, two units on a lot, three units on a lot, four units on a lot, four plus maybe. I don't know. And just leave it at that. And then we avoid, yeah, like, you know, it's one unit, two units, three units, four units. There's three units on that lot. They'd fall under the three unit. I mean, they're probably going to end up in some, I don't think, I think they're still going to be outside of the zone and they're going to be a nonconforming Situation but that's how I would just do it because I think multi-unit solves the problem. I just the word dwelling Kind of a weird word. Um, maybe avoid dw words It just sounds funky. There's only like five or six of them in the English language. But I just think that solves that problem. And it also solves the problem that we have of like, I don't know what this means right now. Detached single family, attached single family. I mean, I kind of know what it means after having looked into it and worked on it for several years. Detached two family versus attached multiple dwelling class A, class B. I mean, the class A, class B, I think it might be worth maintaining a separate definition in the short term, because one of them is more, I think, targeted towards like what Alicia was talking about, the four to 10 and maybe occasionally 15 units, smaller buildings where you have a lot of units inside, like what looks to be a more standard residential structure. And then the class B is the less than six stories or 75 feet, which is kind of more the bigger Lumiere type thing. So, I mean, right now, I don't think it's particularly clear that that's what's happening, but we kind of have two single family definitions with the two family attack, and then like a two family and a three family, and then like a small multifamily and a big multifamily, but I think we could just change that in the, and maybe we don't do that right now to all of them, but we could at least do the multiple dwelling to say, x number of units on a lot. Maybe class A is 4 to 10, even though it doesn't really align with the definition, because the definition right now is, where is it? A building or structure containing three or more not over three stories in height is technically what class A is. And then the second one is three or more not containing not over six stories in height, which I think also but not including group of three or more attached single family dwellings. So that excludes the three family triple decker. Um, so I think it might be worth at least saying four or more units on a lot for, uh, but not over three stories in height and then four or more units in a lot, not over six stories in height, something like that in the short term. I think in the longterm we should just move away from everything that we have right now and kind of try to redefine it more in a, in a clearer way just to talk about how many units are present on a lot. And then I think at the larger levels, we'll end up in situations where that's not actually the best way to describe the structure as well, like I think we might want to talk about. I actually, in some sense, for large multi-unit buildings, I think we may be in a better place to talk about them in terms of stories versus in terms of units. Um, so I think that might be something maybe we look at down the road, but that might be a way to at least get us towards some more, uh, household type neutral and also clear, like plain English definition.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And if we did that though,
[Zac Bears]: There's a use that's not defined.
[Zac Bears]: Three or more dwelling structure has a separate residential use and it's under, I'll leave it to you, but it's attached single family dwelling.
[Zac Bears]: I take it as just attached units, whether it's up and down or side to side.
[Zac Bears]: Right. That's really an interesting- That's why that definition under attached single family dwelling has me think that the two dwelling structure is also a two family stacked as well as a row house.
[Zac Bears]: Otherwise there's no definition.
[Zac Bears]: To me, that's a row house.
[Zac Bears]: And neither does the three family in the use table, which to me is only existing as an exception to the dwelling multiple definition in the clause after the work, but not including a group of three or more attached single family dwellings. I don't know. Like that's where that.
[Zac Bears]: Exactly.
[Zac Bears]: And the only question I have there is I think it's actually all pretty easy, which is that the single family, If you look at the use table, the single family detached is allowed basically everywhere except apartment 3A commercial and office. The two families are allowed in general residence plus apartments. Three families are allowed in apartments only. Detached two-family building, which I don't really understand what that is. That's one that confuses me. And then it looks like if it's under three stories but more than three units, but not a triple-decker, that's allowed in apartment one, apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one. And if it's more than three units, but between three and six stories, that's allowed in apartment two, apartment three, and commercial one.
[Zac Bears]: Is it not actually? Like top?
[Zac Bears]: Is that detached?
[Zac Bears]: Right. And this is where I think it just gets.
[Zac Bears]: I think in the interim, I think like to pass something that clarifies this issue without breaking the zoning, yes. And I think the only thing that comes in there is that there is on the four plus, and I guess arguably on the three plus right now, and that's where I think we should have a three. It's not clear to me exactly what the intent of the existing table of uses is when it comes to a three-unit building. Other than that, if for some reason there was a three-unit building that was over three stories or under six stories, that it wouldn't be allowed in an apartment one district. So that's the only thing I think where there's a potential conflict that comes in is if we do a four-plus definition, it looks like it would need to be split between something that's four-plus and under three stories and four-plus and over three stories so that between three and six stories, so that that second grouping wasn't in the apartment one district. Just if we're not actually trying to change that right now, if we're trying to correct an issue, but not trying to change the policy of what's allowed where.
[Zac Bears]: I just think on this one, we're pulling a thread, and it's like a thread in a definition that's now a thread in the use table that's going to end up being a thread in the dimensional table. And I almost wonder if it makes more sense for us to not fix the definition and just as part of this process. Basically, I think we're just going to end up creating two work buckets, which is like we're going to figure out a better way to say what we're already doing. And that's going to take a bunch of working time. And then we're going to change it again. to what we want it to be. And I just wonder if it might be better to just do the second part.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not opposed to it, I just would not want to also create a situation where they're not sure which, you know, which definition applies to which use of dimensional requirement. Right. But I don't, you know. But in any case, I just wanted to quickly also ask a process question. I'm fine. We can kind of circle back to this. Maybe we'll just rest on and go through some of the easier definitions and our brains will work better, at least mine. is the idea tonight to, so I remember we were talking about basically a few things. We wanted to do definite, basically the first bucket of work was definitions, a site plan review, update to level site plan review language, and then some updates to the use table. In terms of what we're talking about tonight is the intention to report out from here to the regular council for next week's meeting some of those definitions and some of the use table changes so that that can start going to CD board. Is that kind of where we're, Is that where we're at?
[Zac Bears]: And just to clarify as well, maybe it's the clerk or Alicia or Danielle or all of you really. So let's say we went with the second option and we said, we're not going to report anything out tonight. We're going to have a meeting on the 22nd. Hopefully, we'll have the actual draft ordinance language for everything relatively in a place. And maybe Scott will have had a chance to take a look at some of it. If we were to port that out of here, then it'd be in council on the 28th, then we'd refer out to community development board. It's 14 days that it has to be advertised for CD board and then another 14 days for the council, right?
[Zac Bears]: And so could we have an ad that goes out that the Community Development Board would consider it at some point in June, and then we could consider it at our June 25th meeting? Is that enough time if we were to refer it to Community Development Board on May 28th?
[Zac Bears]: Sorry, of May?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. So the other option would be try to get some stuff out the door tonight, but I think that we might be better off personally. Going through these definitions, saying which ones we're comfortable with just as a checkbox, coming back in two weeks with some edits to the definitions, hopefully having the site plan review framework draft also in two weeks, maybe even the GIS zoning map. And then if we have the definitions, we probably also have the use table changes. So then we could do that all at once.
[Zac Bears]: The both nights being the 5th and the 26th of June.
[Zac Bears]: And if they were to want to the 26th, we could. either open or re-advertise for our July meeting.
[Zac Bears]: All right, yeah. Okay, I think that's the way to go, personally.
[Zac Bears]: We have an interesting choice as to be fun or serious with this definition. Doggy or dog. I don't really have a position.
[Zac Bears]: The second... If I could just jump in on that really quickly. In the definitions, it is eating place drive-thru already, so that may have just been... Is it still drive-in eating place in the use table?
[Zac Bears]: I just found it. It's a eating place without drive-thru, eating place with drive-thru in the use table. It is eating place and then eating place drive-thru in the definitions.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, and it definitely makes sense to add a cafe, coffee shop definition.
[Zac Bears]: If you haven't done the research on it yet, totally understand. Is there a terminology that is consistent, like eating place, eating establishment?
[Zac Bears]: Or in the state law.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, it does. They all seem a little convoluted.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's worth discussing. Now, we had a lot of discussions about this when we did the recodification, and I believe where we landed on that, most of those discussions, I think Councilor Scarpelli and I were the only ones here for. The final vote was that the consanguinity blood relation stuff is totally out the window. We can't do that. That's illegal. And we wanted to define household, which I think the definition in here does meet the intent, which is everybody who lives in a single housing unit. That's a household. And I guess what I'm hearing you say is, A, if we want to rehash that whole argument, we had like three meetings on that argument. I think it might be worth looking at the meeting reports from those meetings to see why we landed where we landed and what we voted on for specific motions. But is what you're saying that we need a definition of both because there's elements of state law? Is there something outside of our zoning that would require us to have a separate definition for each of those terms?
[Zac Bears]: And I guess, let's just guess, I guess, you know, what's the question we're trying to solve for? And do we do that by defining the people or the structure? Right. What's the better way to to go after that? I just think when we start, I think it's just really hard to enforce housekeeping unit. I don't know how. What if the landlord says, hey, everybody, tell them all you want to live together, which they will do. If I'm a landlord who built a structure and now we've regulated that structure to say you can't do what it was designed for, then there's going to be an incentive for them to lie.
[Zac Bears]: or even the, I mean, I don't know, if we can, by zoning, regulate what you were talking about, like the separate bathrooms per bedroom. I don't know. I have more questions, but I just, if Councilor Cohen's had any.
[Zac Bears]: We need to look at short-term rental. lodging house definition, all of the, dormitory definition, all of the definitions and uses where we're talking about how different groups of people are in using different housing units and try to align that to a new structure. Because again, we didn't do that in the recodification, right? The lodging house definition and the lodger definition is still, I think you could apply those to these situations, right? You could, I mean, if the building department wanted to, I could see them, saying if there's seven locked bedrooms and, you know, I can see them applying that definition to it. And I don't know that that's fair either. I think we should take this whole, I think right now, the definition of household fits what we're saying, right? Like it fits the intent of the council's vote on the recodification, which was that a household is the people who live in a unit. Now, if we need to redefine what a unit is to say that if there's a single family structure with seven locked bedrooms, that's seven units and not one unit, or it's seven micro units or a multi-tenant arrangement or something like that, I think that makes sense. But I think, again, it's like you pull that thread and then there's like four other things that we would need to adjust and address to fix that too. So that to me seems like it's almost a bucket of questions and something that we should look at like holistically together. as we update the whole ordinance. And I just also want to throw in, it could be worth saying that if you're doing this sort of arrangement, you can't have parking permits or something, right? I don't know. That's something that we're considering and I know Somerville has considered it when that has been a concern for on-street parking.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Vice President Collins, I think what we may have identified here, like the nexus for why this came on, is that by changing the definition, we've unearthed a new use. rather than that, that we need to adjust the definition of household. I think that might be like how I would think about it. Like there's a use that doesn't quite fit dormitory lodging house, but also that our definition of household being anyone who wants to live together as long as it's safe and appropriate for the health code can live in a unit together. That is, I don't think that principle is something we want to change. I just think by changing it, we may have allowed an undefined use that we had never seen before, or a variant of the lodging house use that is kind of unexpected and different.
[Zac Bears]: I just think you can't do better than Chapter 48.
[Zac Bears]: That's the insurance for... I think I know what a travel trailer is.
[Zac Bears]: That's interesting. I didn't realize we did it that way. I mean, I knew about the under occupancy, but I didn't think about single family only instead of just
[Zac Bears]: Not really, I was just thinking of the tiny homes would become more useful if we were starting to look at dimensional, small, non-conforming lots, 2,000 square feet, 2,500 square feet. Maybe you could put a tiny home by right, something like that, where it's really like a tiny little lot that we can't do anything with right now, but maybe that use would make sense.
[Zac Bears]: Just with the, do we think this is a typo where it just says accessory, and it should say accessory use? Or would the definition of accessory stay? Or would we just get rid of the, and as referred to in this chapter, also means a use which does not alter or impair the character of the premises on which it's located or of the neighborhood? I'm just wondering. If we're just adding the word use and taking out that second clause, or if we're adding a whole other definition that mirrors the.
[Zac Bears]: There's just a definition for accessory, which seems... Yes.
[Zac Bears]: There is already an accessory structure definition.
[Zac Bears]: I'm fine with it. I just don't think we want to end up with something that says accessory that then says exactly the same thing as accessory use, except for one phrase. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have accessory use right now. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: It also might be worth doing structure comma accessory because there's structure.
[Zac Bears]: Although it just says structure, it doesn't say structure comma principle, so.
[Zac Bears]: I actually, if I may, it might be worth striking and replacing the whole section. like just writing up the new section as we want it, rather than doing the whole definitions. Because I think we still also have this issue where we have the zoning changes that we made last fall, which we're still waiting to get back from KP Law to add to Muni Code. So once Muni Code doesn't reflect those changes, it might be worth, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Maybe we could do a red line version, but also a start could replace like as the formal, like the red line version could be a supporting document, but that the formal thing that we're doing is striking and replacing the full section just to make sure that we have everything that we want. But I agree we should have a red line. It might even need to be a red line and a green line. We might want to also have, make sure people can see what was changed last fall when we passed that.
[Zac Bears]: There is no definition of footprint. There is gross floor area, which mentions the same things.
[Zac Bears]: I actually don't... Only for the reason that if we change this now before we change other things later, it's going to mean we can build fewer things in the interim. Is the intent to change it just because it doesn't make sense that lock coverage wouldn't include a non-principal structure? because I think logically that's true, but also I think if we go down this road, then between now and whenever, if ever, there's an adjustment, it just means it's less likely to build an ADU based on lot coverage, detached ADU, or we have these situations where we have detached structures, and I'm guessing if they're not the principal structure, they're currently not counting towards lot coverage, which means that you can actually build a little bit more on the lot. So it's just from the pure perspective of, of I think we all agree that the dimensional requirements are kind of nuts. And this is going to add further burden on the dimensional requirements to make this change, even though I agree that logically it doesn't make any sense that a non-principle structure is not included in the law coverage measurement. I just think it could create a negative impact in the interim between fixing this definition and then fixing the dimensional requirements and the law coverage requirements.
[Zac Bears]: I'm just throwing it out there. I mean, since we're coming back in a couple of weeks, just to put that one out there. Let's assume that we don't address dimensional requirements. I think we all agree we're going to do that as part of this project, but let's just assume we don't. And then suddenly this stays there. I just think it means less stuff gets built. Fewer ADEs are going to be able to be permanent because of a lot coverage dimensional requirement. But I don't know how building is currently interpreting this anyway, so I guess that's my one caveat. If they're saying it obviously doesn't make sense that block coverage wouldn't include all the structures on the lot, then my point is proved. I don't know. Right.
[Zac Bears]: But that's just what I'm concerned about is like right now, great. If you want to have an ADU, if it's a 30% lot coverage and you put the ADU, it doesn't count towards that. The lot's a little more covered. I mean, I'm not also advocating that we get rid of all permeable services or anything with anyone. You know, I don't know. It just seems to me to be a point where the illogical structure of our zoning ordinance and the illogical wording of this definition, which is more illogical, is kind of where I'm at. To me, it's the dimension.
[Zac Bears]: That's my suggestion. That's just my, but I'm also open to an argument in the other direction. You know, I don't, I'm not strongly, I just think that's the only, only negative consequence I could see in the short term of making this change before we adjust the lot coverage requirements themselves.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Yeah. And I think my general principle on a lot of this is that we don't want to do something early on. I don't think we ever want to make a change that's going to reduce the buildability of the lots, even if eventually we'll make a change that will rectify that.
[Zac Bears]: That would be fine with me. I also just like the idea of putting a pin in it and coming back, maybe making it part of the dimensional requirements discussion to update this definition and any other definitions.
[Zac Bears]: Just to throw out there that I don't see setback in the definition or the use table, or sorry, the dimensional table. And now looking through it, but it is spread everywhere else. But my favorite thing is in the plain development district, we have something called the yard setback. We want to get really, I don't even know.
[Zac Bears]: And if that's a project that is bigger than two weeks, I don't think there's an issue. like if I was going through this I would say that one and Lock coverage being lumped in with dimensional part requirements could be like two things that maybe are worth saying are happening after but like the medical uses Medical uses the The actual dwelling stuff like around the one two three multi and the eating establishments, like those are things I think, if I was picking and choosing what to do in two weeks and what maybe needs a bigger conversation, I would say that the household, different ways that people live and the lot coverage dimensional requirements would be things we'd maybe punt. And I'd like to leave this idea of like, let's put in these different things now on the one unit, two unit, three unit, multi-unit thing, and then we can work all that out later. But I think, yeah, that's just my suggestion again. But if you guys think it's doable to talk about dormitory lodging, multi-tenant.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I would just throw into, I think like maybe by the end of June, Some of us, maybe, I don't know, some combination of all of us, I think we'll come up with kind of like taking everything that's in the long A and B lists and maybe we can start kind of putting them into like project-based groupings. I know some of them are already, some of them I think are still a little bit split out, but like I think we've identified two tonight. But maybe I'd have to go back and look to see if we've already identified them. But we've added the law coverage definition to the dimensional question, which is definitely a question we want to answer. And then I think we've kind of come up with this question of how do people live in different formations of people living in different styles of housing, which I don't know that we really had before. So that might be another kind of grouping. But that's how I was trying to think about it when we came up I'm just trying to think about like the topics, you know, under each topic maybe there's like a project type.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Great. So that makes sense. That sounds right. So just I just want to make sure that kind of package, and this is the stuff we want to pass before we want to report out from the 22nd to the 28th meeting so that an ad will do all the advertising so that CD board can hear it and then we can start a hearing on the 25th of June is all these definitions minus the questions around household and the question around lot coverage, site plan review, draft. the table of use and the map with the updated colors. Well, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And I think Councilor Collins was talking about, so I wanted to separate that out.
[Zac Bears]: Right. I think that's package one. And then you just mentioned some ADU-related, climate-related, inclusionary-related. Starting with that on the 22nd, we then have two June meetings to workshop that. Maybe we, at the second or third one, are talking about a second package that we could consider over the summer.
[Zac Bears]: Is that part of the site plan review, the Dover piece?
[Zac Bears]: We do have a use, right? We have an other municipal uses, use eight under community uses on the use table and it is a yes by right in all districts.
[Zac Bears]: And I agree with that. I was just just pointing that out and honestly it might be worth consolidating the public fire station public library and other municipal uses into or if Maybe with what you're writing, we can exempt them. I don't know. But I'm just saying those are in there. I don't know that they're useful. I don't know that the parking code and the loading code are really meaningful. And I'm certain that it narrows the flexibility of the city, so.
[Zac Bears]: I think that makes sense. And I think also, I think it would be useful for us to take everything that's in the climate plan sheet and basically say, OK, these ones are CR, climate resiliency. These ones are HP, housing production. These ones are, and put them into the topics that may also be worth it. And I keep asking you to reformat this. So I'm actually happy to help. But maybe if I have a second. can put a framework in. But again, I think that these topics should be considered areas where any specific change or idea goes to a specific topic, and then we can consider the topics discreetly, rather than having different pieces of different topics being discussed at different meetings, because I think we're just going to start getting really confused. about that. So like, I think it's useful. I think what we're doing now, it's saying, let's sort all of the zoning related plan recommendations into topics is a valuable thing to do. I think once we've done that, we should not be having like a climate plan related meeting, but then going to say, okay, let's look at everything from the climate plan, the comp plan and any other plan that went to the climate resiliency bucket. And we're having a meeting on that bucket. And like, I think tonight we have Um, you know, the block coverage definition is definitely going to this UDR bucket. So it might even be worth like now that we have the phase one phase two, it might even be worth being like, we have a, you know, labeling them as like a CR one, a CR two, or some, that might not be the best number for each item, but also sorting, sorting each like idea by phase and then by topic bucket. Um, cause then probably, maybe even later in June or certainly after June, we can start having conversations about each specific topic bucket area. And maybe we could spend some time in June also taking the comp plan and sorting that out into the buckets. And I also just want to flag that I think there are probably one or two maybe new new buckets or buckets that we didn't consider and I'm just seeing it going through how much of this is like definitions process and format like maybe there should just be like a general a topic that's just like general or legal definitions format and then maybe there should be a topic that's very explicitly about like permitting and process. Cause those just seem to be two things that are missing. And then I don't know exactly where our discussion about this type of the housing, how people, different people like with the different ways that people live. I don't know what bucket I'd put that, put that in. Maybe it could be housing production. Maybe it could be housing affordability. I don't think it's worth, it's all an entire topic area. Cause I do think it's pretty, you know, specific, but, but that would just be a way for me. Cause I think like we keep kind of getting, And it's growing pains of learning. And we're figuring out how to do a very, very ambitious thing and talk about 25 million things. How do we do that in an orderly way? It just seems like we're going down different paths and threads. And I think just having even clearer, taking what we've already developed and making it slightly clearer. If we have an idea, it goes into a topic-based bucket. When we get to that, that's when we'll talk about it. It will help us to make sure that everything we want to get done gets done.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I do want to point out kind of what you said about what you said, you said ADUs,
[Zac Bears]: Right. I think, like, to be honest, I think we should take the mapping and put it in the mapping district's bucket, take the ADUs, put it in the housing production bucket, take inclusionary, put it in the housing affordability bucket, and then do that rather than necessarily front-loading. Sure. But I also think, like, right now we're kind of still in almost I think through June 30th we're in the phase of what are the quick things that we can do and then how are we still structuring the format of this process so that all the other things and ideas that we come up with happen between July 1 and whenever we finish up in 2025, that that happens in an orderly way. And I don't necessarily think we have to go entirely sequentially, like we can't do X until we've done Y, but I do think the more that a meeting could be like, we could say we're having two meetings on all the housing production ideas and then get that out of the way versus having like one housing affordability topic and one housing production topic and one climate resiliency topic in a single meeting. I just think that's going to end up getting, we're going to get less done.
[Zac Bears]: And just for me, if by June 30th, all that we had done was this package that we just agreed to, and we had reviewed the major plans and put all of the different zoning related items into their specific buckets. And we had said, these are the buckets, it's the final list. And maybe we'd started to calendar out when we're going to take up specific things. I would be fine with that. If there are PDS priorities of things we want to get done over the summer or discrete things that we don't want to refer into those buckets and take sequentially, I'm fine with that too. But I do think we should try to limit that, not have that be our process, but have it be kind of exceptions to the process because of things that we want to fast track, but have most things fall into just because I'm starting to get brainwashed on what we're doing.
[Zac Bears]: Keep the paper in committee and adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: city council committee of the whole may 7 2024 mr. Kirk please call the roll present present present five present two absent the meeting is called to order there'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council committee the whole 6 p.m. the Medford City Council chamber second floor Medford City Hall 85 George P has to drive Medford ma and via zoom to submit written comments please email a her to be set Medford dash ma dot gov the purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 2 4-0 0 9 the community development block grant action plan for fiscal year 2025 This is for community development and planning. The action plan contains the proposed use of community development block grant funds for the program year, which extends from July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2025. CDBG is a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that began in 1974. Fiscal 2025 will be the city of Medford's program year 50 of CDBG funding. Happy 50th birthday to CDBG. And Councilor Collins has joined us as well. So with that, I will turn over to our CDBG manager, we'll see.
[Zac Bears]: Just if I could ask, do you know what that's going to bring us to for the public services funding?
[Zac Bears]: Anything else you want to say before we hear from some of our applicants?
[Zac Bears]: Great. We recognize Megan Fidler-Carey. Hi, Megan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Megan. Any questions for Megan, for members of the council? Seeing none, we will go to our next applicant, which is the Welcome Project. Sarah Lodgen, if you could give us a summary of your request.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Do we have any questions for the applicant from the Welcome Project? Seeing none, Laurel, I do have a question. For the folks who did not receive, who requested money but were not recommended, are we expecting them to make a case for themselves?
[Zac Bears]: All right, great. Do we have anyone from Community Family?
[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll recognize Stacey. Stacey, welcome. If you could tell us a little bit about your application request for CDBG funds for the community family.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Any questions for community family? Stacey, I just wanted to say thank you. I was, as a Medford public school student, volunteer in community service at the Buddy Cohalen Center and Alzheimer's has affected my family. So really appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Next, we will go to Megan Transport, LLC. Right behind you, Laurel.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. You might need to get a little closer. We're working on upgrading the system. You can grab the chair behind you, too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. Any questions? Oh, sorry, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. We will go to our next Applicant the Medford Council on Aging will go to Pam Kelly and give us a description of your request, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Kelly. Any further questions for Director Kelly and the Council on Aging? Seeing none, thank you, Pam. We will go next to Mystic Valley YMCA, Mystic Community Market.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. Hi, Debbie.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, Debbie. Any questions for our Mystic Valley YMCA Mystic Community Market applicant? Seeing none, next we'll go to SCM Community Transportation.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much. Do we have any questions for SCM Transportation? All right, okay, seeing none, we will go next to the West Bedford Community Center.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if we could just before we go there, could you explain the difference between the CDBG and the CDBG-CB?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. So yeah, we'll go to ABCD first.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for ABCD? I have one, Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Laurel. Any further questions? Thank you so much. And we will go next to Housing Families.
[Zac Bears]: Great, Jaina.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Dana. Could you just share what your goal was and what you exceeded it by? That would be just helpful.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for housing families? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions for housing families? Seeing none, we can jump back to West Medford Community Center. I don't know that anyone's popped on.
[Zac Bears]: Would you be able to share their information, or is there another thing that you guys would like to do for this process?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Laurel. All right. Well, we've heard from everybody on the list. Is there anybody who has any further questions, or is there any member of the public who would like to comment at this time? I have Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's what they're saying. Any further questions, discussion, comments by members of the public? Seeing none, we'll go to member of the public, Eileen Lerner. Name and address for the record, please. Eileen, I'm asking you to unmute. There should be a button popping up on your screen that will ask you to unmute. Yeah, she just raised her hand though, so. It looks like we're having some technical difficulties. There will be another chance to comment at the public hearing. I don't know, Laurel, if you want to go through what the rest of the process is here.
[Zac Bears]: So we have a public hearing at our May 14th meeting.
[Zac Bears]: And then the final will go to, but then that will be our last role in the process.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anything else? I know that public comments tend to be a good thing. In this sense, for the CDBG program, I know we've definitely solicited them in the past. Could you just say a little bit more about how folks can make their comments?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you so much. Any further questions from members of the council? Is there a motion to refer this out to the regular meeting? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion to report the paper out of committee and adjourn. Second. Seconded by Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. And we are joined by Councilor Callahan as well.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Committee of the Whole, May 1st, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. present, five present, two absent. The meeting is called to order. There'll be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email ahertovice at medford-ma.gov. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 2025. And this is our fourth preliminary budget meeting of the fiscal 25 budget process. We have the following departments present. We have our human resources, also health insurance and workers comp, assessor, building, diversity, equity, inclusion, and treasury. Is there anyone who would like to jump to the front of the line if they need to? Or are we comfortable going in order? Seems like everyone's okay with going in order, so we'll go in order, and I will start with human resources, health insurance, and workers comp. I'm not sure, I think you might just, Lisa, might just be doing the human resources part, and then maybe Bob and Courtney, are you doing health insurance and workers comp? Oh, you're doing that too, great. Ah, they're your muscle, okay. I was like trying to suss out why you were here. Great, so I will go over, We'll do HR department, then we can do health insurance, then we can do workers comp. I'll just go over the top line really quickly. The fiscal 25 proposed budget for human resources, $267,537.23 is up from $202,357 in fiscal 24. And according to the change sheet, there are two increases here. One is, and again, this is in the fixed cost growth area, moving an ARPA-funded position onto the general fund budget, it looks like. And the second is the, and it's the only item that's a new expense, is implementing safety compliance management leadership disciplinary trainings and a department head training. Great. So I like to just ask for kind of four-ish questions or three questions and a statement. and you can take it from there director just let us know anything else you'd like us to know about the budget I did a very very short summary so feel free to share anything more that you'd like to share and then we'd love to hear about any programs that you did not request this year that you may like to request in the future, any staffing really, any expense that you envision your department needing but that we weren't able to request this year. And then we'd love to hear about what you have done over this current fiscal year 24, what your plans are for the next fiscal year. And then just describing the process, which I've been doing every meeting since this is a newer This is a brand new process for the city. We started with, this is following our new budget ordinance, which was just ordained last night by the city council. And we had been following it though in advance, and we appreciate the administration for working with us on that. In March, the city council developed budget recommendations and submitted them to the mayor. And now we are holding preliminary budget meetings with our department heads, which is a departure from past practice. We're holding them before the final submission of the budget by the mayor at the end of May. And then we will consider the budget at that time and how that is directly relevant to you. If there's anything that changes significantly from what we've talked about tonight, by the in the actual budget presentation, either we might invite you back or the administration can say we want to come back with the department. And then we can hear more from you in June. But if not, then this may be the one time that you're here with us for the budget session. So that's really it. As I said, all you just what anything more about your budget, anything you see that in the future that wasn't in this budget, and then we'd love to hear about the the past and future of your department's work. Are we on?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Director Crowley. Any, um, comments or questions from the council?
[Zac Bears]: you. Yeah, um, comment on that.
[Zac Bears]: our city council budget recommendations, which we submitted March 20th to the administration. And we did receive a response from the mayor that we're looking at putting a paper before the council around the solicitor. So, you know, I think that is probably going to be around the budget time and the personnel ordinance. But I did want to say that that was that we received our budget recommendation. So we did get the administration's response on that, um, and agree with Councilors Scarpelli. That's a priority, and we're open for more details, but also just wanted to highlight that that was, um, a benefit of our new budget process that we did submit that recommendation, and I will go to Councilor Leming, and then I do have a question as well. Councilor
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. And my question is, jumping back to the classification and compensation study, I heard basically that a bunch of the classification piece of that is being implemented administratively over the next few months, so I think that's great. Always glad to hear something from the 80s or the 90s is being brought to today. I think that's really good. And the more we do that, the less we'll have to do it in the future, right? In that groove. On the compensation side of the study, the council has had a lot of questions around compensation. Councilor Scarpelli raised one about the solicitor's office, the law office, and whether the pay and the compensation is sufficient to bring on staff. And our experience with that over the last couple of years seems to be that it isn't. you know, but I think in general, the council is very interested in updating the personnel ordinance, something that we have talked about as getting the personnel ordinance back on Muni code. And we didn't want to do that until we had worked through the process of, um, you know, making sure it was accurate and getting all the figures correct. And I know that's part of the compensation element of the study. So I was just interested to know, um, what the timeline is on that part of the project.
[Zac Bears]: And that would include the compensation? It's all one package. Okay, great. And then I assume that we would be able to see it? Yeah, of course. And then guessing that we'll talk about updating the personnel ordinance
[Zac Bears]: I will say that we have done some mini
[Zac Bears]: Okay. That's great. Yeah. And I think for us, you know, for me, I mean, there's some obvious positions where it seems to be off scope.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And so that's great. I think for us, the other is just the logistical piece of people always ask us, so how much do these people get paid or what's the salary rate? I'd love to be able to start pointing them again. I don't know.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I do do that. I'm happy to do that. But it seems at some point prior to this council being on the council and prior to the clerk and prior to having HR and prior to this mayor's administration, the personal ordinance was pulled off of the ordinances website. I don't know why. So I'm guessing probably because it was updated so frequently, we now have Let's say the most favorable explanation would be that it was being updated so frequently that we didn't want to pay the current page cost. We have a better contract with MuniCode now, so it's much easier to update the website. So if that was the reason, we'd solve that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions on the HR side of things before we jump into health insurance and workers' compensation? Councilor Scrively, do you have your hand raised? I think not.
[Zac Bears]: I thought so, but Adam was doing his due diligence. Great, so that's the human resources piece of the budget. Thank you for that.
[Zac Bears]: Next is insurance. And this is budgeted fiscal 2024, 25, oh wow, 25,500,000. And it's going up to $28,255,000 for fiscal 25. And it looks like the main driver of this is a $2.725 million increase in the health, dental, and life insurance budget. And I mean, that is the vast majority of this budget already. but also $120,000 in insurance premiums. So obviously, especially in any budget, this would be a significant increase, especially seeing it this year. It is a large chunk already of the $9 million. dollars that is available above last year's general fund budget. So if you wanna talk about why that's happening, I understand we did talk about it a little bit with Bob, Director Dickinson last week, but I understand it's because the GIC rates are going up. But if you wanna get into that more.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And it is obvious, you know, rates are going up 10%, that'll go up 12%, so that's pretty much in line with this estimate. Is there anything other than the health insurance, the other insurance premiums, or any other thing you want to touch on? Did you use the same process to kind of arrive at those figures?
[Zac Bears]: So, yeah, I know the organization that I work for in my full time job, we we plan for everybody to take family insurance.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And so you're, when you talk about budgeting for you're talking about like just the vacant positions, you're expecting that they would all be filled and everyone would take the biggest health insurance they could take.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions on the insurance budget or fiscal 25? seeing none, I'm just going to make one comment, which is that I want to note again, you know, hopefully we have that averaging out over years, but, you know, 10, 12%, 11% is more than 2.5%. And when we have the growth of costs like this, it eats up whatever the city is able to raise in the levy. We're spending, you know, we're so far through this budget, I think there's been one department that has had a new expense and it may have been HR for $21,000 for training. Everything else has been a fixed cost growth, a union contract or health insurance costs or increased cost of office supplies, paper and ink, you know, and it's more than 2.5%. So when we talk about what the city is able to do every year, we are doing more with less. Our costs are going up faster than our revenues are increasing. And it means that we are at best maintaining what we have and not really adding very much. So I just want to make that point, because as we go through this process and we see budget after budget after budget, all we can do is keep what we have, even though we hear from departments. And it's no slight against anyone. It's systemic. We have a systemic revenue shortage. every department needs one more person to take on a function, or a halftime person, or new programming, or wants to launch something that could help benefit our residents, and we can't implement it. And so this seems to be the big driver this year with the insurance, with $3 million of our $9 million going towards that. But I just wanted to raise that point.
[Zac Bears]: Right, and that point wasn't the point I was, you know, I wasn't trying to spite you at all.
[Zac Bears]: And that's the thing, you know, we're scraping for essentials. Yeah, I get it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Any further questions on health insurance or I guess the insurance department, which is all of our different insurances? All right, to workers comp, bottom line, if I can flip the page, we budgeted fiscal 24, 675,000, budget for fiscal 25, 788,000. That's an increase of 17%. And that is driven, looking again, like by the actuals process that you just talked about that we did for health insurance. So.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any questions on workers comp? Councilor Scarpellilli?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Just one clarifying question, and maybe it might be, you may have kind of already answered it, but I just want to fully understand it. So when you're talking about a workers' comp claim, we're paying out of the workers' comp, and then you're saying when there's a settlement, it comes off. Are those settlements, you know, does that affect our insurance side of things at all? Like, are those settlements paying insurance?
[Zac Bears]: Not necessarily health insurance, but like other insurance, like liability insurance. Like, are we paying out any of those settlements? Is there a cash payment, and is that coming? Yeah, so what happens is
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. I didn't even need your backup. I think so. Let me double check. Yes. All right. Next department is assessor. We have our assessor, chief assessor, Ted Costian here. As I noted, and I'll just read again, basically, I will quickly read the budget, and then we'd love to hear you expound on that, anything that I didn't cover. Then we'd love to hear what you've been up to this year, what you're up to over the next year. If there's a big change in your budget, once the budget's submitted at the end of the month, we may invite you back in June. So I'll give it a start. We have the assessor's department. Fiscal 24 budget, $559,637. Fiscal 25 proposed, $586,609.84. That's an increase of $26,972.84. And all of those increases are in the fixed cost growth field where we have step increases. We also have half of a position being funded through ARPA and half is gonna be coming on the general fund since ARPA ends December 31st. And there was also a decrease in the legal services line item from, I believe, 50,000 to 9,600, if I'm remembering correctly. Um, so that is what we have. I will go to our assessor if you want to expand on that, and then tell us what you've been up to as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great. One question. Is there anything not requested in this budget that you might see a need for in future budgets, either staffing, systems, programming?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And that led right into my next question, which was, you know, how do we plan to keep the field assessor position on it? It sounds like that would be a request that we'd make in the next fiscal year budget.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. Um, and you know, as a council, um, you know, all we can do is cut, right? So I don't think you know, I don't think we've ever taken a cut vote, actually, since, um, but a cut motion, but I don't think we ever taken a cut vote since, uh, and I'm glad that the building commissioners here to I sent an email and I've just read I never responded to either of you earlier in April, just talking about assessments and new growth and flips and kind of there's just this Um. Parcels buildings and parcels being undervalued and, you know, selective valuation of parcels. And I know we've gone through it a million times. I won't ask you to go through again. The assessing process, state law, what you follow, you know, and all of the different things that go into making sure that all of the parcels in the city are at a fair value. But I did have one question from the response. we did take that vote to go to the June 30th valuation. So I know that added a little bit more for this fiscal year of new growth in the future. Is that going to shorten the lag between when a property value is valued and when the tax bill is adjusted?
[Zac Bears]: So the lag time between the when the market condition and when the value effects is gonna go from about a year to six months?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay, great. So we're cutting six months off of it.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And other than that, is there anything else, that, you know, your department's been doing or, you know, any, I guess my only question is, you know, some, something we, um, I'm trying to get a little bit more of a focus on, and we've been focusing on with some other departments and I'm guessing it might be a factor with your department is like our technology systems, you know, is there any, you know, do you feel like the systems that you have in place are, are effective? Is there anything that might need to be upgraded in the future? Is there anything, you know, as director Crowley talked about, um, you know, they're looking at some systems that might add some automation that might help the office, you know, operate more efficiently. Is there anything like that with the assessing office? I don't think I've ever asked you guys that before.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, for those filling out their budget bingo cards, that's the first mention of AI this year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I know. That's great to hear. Really exciting. And it sounds like you have the systems you need, but the costs go up every year.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Any questions, further questions by members of the council for our assessor?
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, thank you. We'll talk soon. All right. All right. Next, we have building departments. We have Commissioner van der Waal here. Welcome. Good evening. Good to see you. I'm just going to read through really quickly the bottom top line budget, and I'll talk a little bit about the change. We'd love to hear anything that you weren't able to include this year, but that you envision needing for the department in the future, and then hear about your narrative. So just giving a quick start, building department, fiscal 24 budgeted $1,085,531. Fiscal 25 proposed budget $1,030,354.29. And we have a decrease, net decrease, mainly due to facilities budget, our utilities budgeting moving over to the facilities department and a decrease in overtime. And then the fixed cost growth, we have salaries with the raises, union and non-union raises, eligibility for longevity and a $2,500 increase in the cost and supplies needed for our inspectors. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, feel free to share anything you want about the budget, and we'll hear about the great work of your department.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you very much. Just anything that wasn't requested in this year's budget that you may envision us needing for your department to request in future budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Great. So the digitization of the paper records is a future project. And right now, we're not working on it.
[Zac Bears]: So maybe AI. We'll go to Councilor Leming, and then I see Councilor Scarpelli, and then I have a couple questions as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I actually had some questions right along the lines of that, and I think more what was said at the meeting was A, that the rental licensing ordinance proposals in the city's comprehensive plan, and we had had some, I had had some very light discussions talking about how we do already have the short-term rental registry in the books in our zoning, and that's something that we already have, as we've recognized that that's an issue for our community to know about, and it wasn't so much that the building department said, hey, we're initiating this process, it's in the comprehensive plan, and we had had some discussions about how there are ways that a rental registry could improve efficiency and functionality of some of the functions of the department, I think would be a fair characterization of what the discussions have been had. And I actually had some questions along that line. Something that we've been talking about with our planning department, and I've had some conversations with folks in your department in the past, prior commissioners, is seeing more of these LLCs and corporations kind of purchasing properties, and it's becoming a little bit more difficult to maybe get in touch with a real person or a live person if there's an issue on a property. Um, and, you know, I know 1 of the features of some of the more recent rental licensing ordinances have been saying. that either the owner needs to be within 60 miles or there needs to be a property management contact who lives within 60 miles of a property so that if there is an issue, a violation, or something else, that there's a person that the tenant or the city could get in contact with. So just wanted to kind of go along those lines. Are you seeing any sort of impact like where we have more of these kind of I don't want to necessarily call them shell companies. I'm sure they're not all shell companies, but where you have corporate owners and it's tougher to get in touch with them to enforce code violations or building issues.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, all right. Along that line, you did mention the portal being adding more of the short-term rental registry element of it. Could you go into a little bit more of what that's going to look like with the new portal that launched tonight?
[Zac Bears]: Got it, yeah. You know, we do have the short-term rental the existing zoning. We are looking at the existing registration requirements in the existing zoning, something that I had spoken with Commissioner 40 about, uh, the prior building commissioner, and we are looking at as part of our zoning changes, seeing if we can require other communities have done this, and I think we should try the same required the using their platforms for short-term rentals versus the flip side of trying to say you have to register, but then having to literally go on Airbnb and say Medford and see who's registered in Medford. I mean, there's a ton of legwork there that we're hoping we can put into the zoning as other cities have to require that they actually report that information to us rather than asking us to try to figure it out. Because I think that is, again, a huge piece of the puzzle here. just knowing where we have properties. I do know that I've spoken with inspectors, and when there are complaints or reports of issues, that that's the main way that the department is going out and addressing things.
[Zac Bears]: Right. Well, hopefully we can give you a city ordinance to point to that might help government relations when they go to legal, say that they have to give you the documentation. My only other questions are one about, you know, we always talk about it. You know, one of this council's priorities has, at least for all of my five budgets, has been additional code enforcement staff and just more folks in the department. Would that be, I think it's kind of a, you know, I'm guessing you would say that would help you do more work. you had more people to do work.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Okay. I appreciate that perspective. And the council has always felt that five folks maybe isn't enough folks, but maybe we're wrong. My last question is also the email I didn't respond to, but I appreciate you responding to my initial email around the valuations. I did just have one question. You noted that, you know, Generally, we do the permit work value accompanied by a contract. Would it be at all possible and reasonable? I'm guessing those contracts are estimates before construction because they have to get a permit to start construction.
[Zac Bears]: Would it be possible to or do you think there would even be value to asking the permit holder to return a final cost of the project compared to what the bid was?
[Zac Bears]: Is there a threshold that you kind of have in the department saying, okay, this project's big enough or they require a certain documentation, so we're going to triple check at the end?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right. Any further questions for the Building Commissioner, Councilor Leming? Did I see you?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further questions by members of the Council? Seeing none, we do have one public comment. I will go to Eunice on Zoom. Eunice, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I can mention on the fee schedule that the city council did have a resolution to review the fee schedule that went to the planning and permitting committee. we're looking right now for the specific timing, but we did request all of our city departments to take a look at that and send back, you know, take a look at their fees. When was the last time they were adjusted? What was the, what are comparable fee charges in other communities and to report back to the council so that we can consider comprehensively updating fees across all of our city departments. So that is an initiative that we have undertaken. And with that, I will go to Councilor Leming and then the Building Commissioner if you have any comments on the public comment.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions or comments for the building department? Seeing none, thank you, Commissioner.
[Zac Bears]: Our next department is our Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, Director Francis Nwaje. And we are joined by Director Nwaje today by Zoom. And welcome, Director, thank you for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, totally understand. I will just go quickly over the budget here. So we have our departmental budget for fiscal 24 was $107,996. For fiscal 25, the proposed departmental budget is $117,552.53. And the change sheet shows that this is mainly the 2% change in the cost of living adjustment. It is the trainings for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And it is moving funding from the ARPA, currently funded by ARPA, for language access to the general fund budget, which I think is a great thing. You know, one of the first things that President, former President Morell and I did in our first budget in the fiscal 2021 budget, I believe, Um, what was the fiscal 20? No, fiscal 2021 was requesting a line item for language access. So we are great, grateful to see that continue to be a priority here of the, uh, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and of the administration. So with that, um, if there's anything that I, uh, that I you'd like to further add on the summary of the budget, we'd love to hear it. Um, and also share the work that's going on in your department. And I also know you have a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Nwaje. Any questions from members of the Council? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Saint.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. We'll go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just for myself, unless there are further comments or questions by the council. I'm not seeing any. I just wanted to also add my thanks. I know Um, you know, you've heard me say it about other departments tonight. We're talking tonight about, uh, diversity, equity and inclusion department. That is a one person show. Um, although also supported, um, you know, by commissioners and volunteers, but one full time staff person doing so much for our community. Um, and you know, we've heard, uh, from other departments about, um, how you've been engaged with them, HR. I know the clerk's office. I know many other offices where your presence has been highly and deeply valued and your support has been irreplaceable. So I just want to highlight that you've already spoken to it as this budget being a starting point. But I do want to just give you the chance, as I've asked of all the other departments, is there anything that wasn't able to be requested in this budget that you really see as being something that your department needs and that we can hopefully fund in future budgets?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for the answer, and I definitely share the sentiments that you shared and hope to see in the future. The city invest and have the capacity to invest more in the D. E. I. Department and all the great work that you do. Are there any further questions by members of the council for director? No, I say seeing none and seeing no Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you to all the hands raised by the public. Thank you so much for your time tonight and for the great work that you're doing and for presenting the budget. If there are any major changes after the final budget is the mayor's final proposal is sent to us at the end of May. We may have you back. But if not best of luck in the next fiscal year.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Judy. Maybe you should change your department name to Collector Treasurer, and then you could be in the C instead of the T. Oh, is that why we do them alphabetical?
[Zac Bears]: I put HR first because they had Health Insurance and Workers' Comp, and it's, you know, what, you know, $28 million. But, you know, other than that, we went alphabetical, so.
[Zac Bears]: great.
[Zac Bears]: So I'll just as we've done, you've watched us do it a few times tonight. I'm just going to go quickly through the budget. And then you're free to share anything that you want to add to what I said. We'd love to hear your narrative of what was done over the previous year, some goals for the next year. And then as I just noted, we'd also love to hear anything that you really see as being essential for your office that we weren't able to request this year, but that you hope will be included in future budgets. So I'll just go quickly and start. Fiscal 24 budgeted amount was $719,358. The fiscal 25 proposed budget $755,193.69. And the changes there are in our fixed cost growth. There is contractual increases, 2% non-union. There is the part-time salaries. and then there is increased cost in payroll, data processing services, online processing, and there's a postage rate increase. So that is what composes the change. And with that, I'll turn it over to you.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I was at the window a few weeks ago because I misplaced my excise tax bill. easily a new one was printed and I paid my excise tax, so no demand or warrant on me this time.
[Zac Bears]: Um, yeah, just if there's anything, um, goals wise, some, some of any improvements made over the last year, any improvements to make over the next year?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions by members of the council I have two for you. One might be easy, one might not have to come back or send an email, and no worries about that. Just the first one, I noticed we're going from four full-time clerks to three and a half. Looks like the cost is staying about the same, though. If you could just speak a little bit more to that change.
[Zac Bears]: Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Totally understood. My only other question, and again, feel free to get back to me or maybe you might have to, this may be a bigger question than just, the treasure collector, maybe it's for finance in general. There have been some court cases lately on what's called or has been branded as equity theft. So it's when we're doing collection, if someone is a delinquent on their taxes, eventually the city will take the property and Also, they're taking the equity in the property. So it's not just the tax amount. It's also the equity and the Supreme Court ruled that that's not legal. And now the state courts are starting to rule that that's not legal. And I was just wondering if that had any impact on your office's operations or if you're looking at that.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: That would be a question for Vice President Collins or the clerk.
[Zac Bears]: the Planning and Permitting Committee is considering the fee schedule and a communication was supposed to go out to departments to request them to let us know about their fees so that we can look at updating them. I'll follow up on that. Yes, okay. The clerk and Vice President Collins will follow up.
[Zac Bears]: That's much appreciated. Yeah, that's exactly what we're looking for. We want to see similar to what Director Crowley was talking about with job descriptions from the 1980s. We have some fees from the 1980s as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Any further questions by members of the council, comments by members of the council, or motions on any budget? No, just, yeah, you're done. You're good. Yes. Anything else for tonight? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Council is our
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yeah. And you know that that really is the bottom line so far. And I'm sure it will be for everybody. You know these level service budgets keeping the same amount of services still cost more money every year because costs go up. And one of the things that we also request as part of the process and I want to thank the administration for providing it is that on these change sheets it breaks out What's the fixed cost growth? What's the new expenses? And as I noted earlier, basically everything we've had, fixed cost growth, just keeping what we have and seeing those costs go up. And I think, again, the one new expense we've seen, certainly the one new expense item that we saw tonight, was literally compliance trainings for HR, which is a basic thing that we need. When we talk about efficiency, when we talk about government, and we talk about how our tax dollars are being spent, we are maximizing that value every day. And quite frankly, We're going beyond that. We're now at the point, I think, in many departments where there are things that we think departments should do, that departments would like to do, that the community would like departments to do, that we don't do because the funds aren't there. And that's an important message, I think, for the community to be aware of because, you know, they see it and they comment on it and we get what we pay for. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, April 30, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records 24-085 offered by myself. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibility, CCSR students at the Brooks Elementary School for their fundraiser to purchase safety devices for our local United States Postal Service mail carriers. Be it further resolved that we invite these students to the May 14th City Council meeting to receive a citation for their fantastic work. And I also noted that we have a resolution from Councilor Scarpelli, 24-095. Is there a motion to join the two resolutions?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join the two papers by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Kiley. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean, affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. 24-095 be resolved. The city council recognized the amazing work of Samantha McLaughlin and Adam Costello, members of the CCSR and fifth grade students from the Brooks Elementary School on providing safety whistles for postal workers. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, I think you have said most of it, but you know, A, our postal workers are doing incredibly important work that I know lately under incredibly difficult circumstances. So I'm grateful that young people in the city are taking up the mantle of trying to provide some community service. And our CCSR across every school in the district does amazing work. So I want to thank all the students and the educators who make it happen. I do want to go to Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment on the resolution? On the motions of myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll and we will invite these folks to our next regular meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. 24086 by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we congratulate former Councilor Rick Caraviello on the honour of being named 2024 Citizen of the Year by the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and we thank Rick for his decades of service to the city of Medford and his residence. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments from members of the Council on this paper? Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tsengeed.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? I'll just say that I echo my fellow Councilors' comments. Serving with Rick for my first two terms on the Council, some of them with Rick in leadership, through the pandemic, it was a powerful time, an interesting time, and we sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, but always got along before and after meetings, agreed to disagree. definitely work together behind the scenes on several projects, just trying to, you know, go at things from our perspectives and try to advance different proposals, work with different property owners and people who wanted to bring development to our community and try to I encourage that in different ways and I know that that was a big passion of Rick's and he is someone who I hope will continue to do that advocacy as a private citizen. I also just have spoken to so many people involved with our new Metro Public Library. who are very grateful to former Councilor Caraviello for his work to bring that library to our community, work with the Library Foundation, along with many others. And he really was a leader of that, and we have now a beautiful public library, and at a very reasonable cost to the community. So it was a great accomplishment, and I know that he's very proud of it, and we're all very grateful to him for his work. Any further comment on the resolution? Seeing none, on the motion by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean affirmative, non-negative, the motion passes. We're going to have a packed list of invitations for our next meeting because our next resolution is 24098 be it resolved by Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council congratulate the Medford High School Orchestra on winning a gold medal and the Medford Middle School String Ensemble on winning a silver medal at the prestigious Massachusetts Instrumental and Chorus Conductors Association Concert Festival. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng, as amended by Councilor Tseng, any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I move the affirmative. None of the negative motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of April 16, 2024 pass to Councilor Cowen. Councilor Kelly, how did you find those records?
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Highland to accept the records, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Having the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes, the records are accepted. Is there a motion to join the reports of committees? So moved. On the motion of Vice-President Collins to join the reports of committees, seconded by? Second. Councilor Lemmie, would you please call the roll?
[Zac Bears]: I'll give a short summary of the first two and then the committee chairs can give summaries of the rest. the whole budget April 23rd 2024. This is our second preliminary budget meeting. We did receive a presentation from director Dickinson that went into finance director Dickinson that went into the expected revenue for the fiscal 25 budget. Um and also we heard from the legislative department, the finance department, the clerk's department, all of which were either to just factor in the increase in the non-union staff contracts. So again, the only increase in those departments were fixed cost growth. We just had another preliminary budget meeting tonight, and we have one tomorrow, and then we will have some more in the weeks to come. But we are getting ahead of the budget, and I don't think we will be rushing through it in a couple weeks in June, which is an improvement. 24.015 and 24.073, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Councilor LEMMING.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24033 and 24083, Vice President Collins, Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, 2024.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 24084, Public Works and Facilities Committee, Councilor Calderon.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think just to add to that there was a response to your question. What would it cost him and Tim McGibbon set up 400,000 to 700,000 depending on the scale of the staffing. And that would move us from having a crew out two to three times a month to two to three times a week.
[Zac Bears]: Five years, 6 million? The middle path that Councilor Callahan was mentioning was 3.5 million a year. And that's basically, the line was going down ever so slightly on the condition of the roads for 6 million a year we had an increase in conditions and he said that we were between those two numbers right now and he's now working for the first time in the city to estimate When utilities repair the roads, what's the dollar value of that relative? And then you could add up Chapter 90 bond money. That's good. That's good to see. So we're somewhere in between those two. If I can, though. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, I didn't realize.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. Is there a second? Okay, on the motion to sever the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor McLaren. No. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. On the motion to approve Papers 24045 on April 17th, 2024, the Committee of the Whole report April 23rd, 2024, the Planning and Permitting Committee April 24th, 2024, and the Public Works and Facilities Committee April 24th, 2024, by Council Vice-President Collins, seconded by— Councilor Holland. Seconded. Vice-President Collins. To approve, correct? To approve the four, yeah. We are approving the committee reports for the Committee of the Whole budget, April 17th and April 23rd, the Planning and Permitting Committee, April 24th, and the Public Works Committee, April 24th. Roll call, please.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Galland. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo. Councilor John Gallo.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative one, the negative motion passes. Is that any better? Shane, can we do a sound check here? We just put the contract out to redo the sound systems. How about now? Is this any improvement? We have a problem. It won't stick to it. Is there any improvement now? I'm loud and clear? We don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones, so that is one of the issues. I think we don't have the ability to adjust individual microphones. They don't want to do a test, test, test.
[Zac Bears]: Great. The caption is picking it up. 24-067, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, special permit for hours, legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Howard F. Alton Memorial Chambers, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts on April 30, 2024 at 7 p.m., a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Metro Massachusetts 02155 for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford zoning ordinance chapter 94 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of this business 454 High Street Metro Massachusetts 02155 said site being located in a commercial and zoning district as follows extended hours of operation requested Thursday, Friday and Saturday at 11 PM to 1 AM. Petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk, Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations and aids. City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer. By order of the Medford City Council, Adam Hurtubise, City Clerk. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, our Chair on Licensing, and then we can hear from a petitioner if the petitioner is present. Great. And we'll go from there.
[Zac Bears]: We have a petitioner present for Snappy Pats?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, you can share your petition and Councilor Scarpelli may have some questions for you.
[Zac Bears]: No, can we have your name and address for the record, please? Sure.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions for the petitioner for the petition to extend hours of operation Thursday, Friday, Saturday, 11 p.m. to 1 a.m.? ? see none. I do have one question. Are you planning to be every Thursday, Friday, Saturday open till one a.m. Or would it be more as needed?
[Zac Bears]: Earlier than a council meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Hey, you know, we'll see what we can do. These are the businesses we want to keep it met. Oh, of course. Thank you. We'll see what we can do. Maybe we can get some of that to meet.
[Zac Bears]: Well, we need to open the public hearing, so thank you. And if you just stay up here for one second, I'm going to open the public hearing in one moment, open the public hearing to anyone who is in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to comment on the special permit. Public hearing is now open. Would you like to comment on the petition in favor, opposed, or otherwise? I'm guessing you're in favor.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in this public hearing in favor or in opposition to this special permit, or otherwise would like to speak on the proposed special permit? Seeing no one in the Chamber and seeing no hand raised on Zoom, I declare the public hearing closed. Is there a motion?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30- and 60-day review by the Building Department, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office, notice of a public hearing, Medford City Council. A public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council in the Howard F. Baldwin Memorial Chamber, City Hall, 185 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, on April 30th, 2024 at 7 p.m., assumed to be posted no later than Friday, April 26th, 2024, on a petition from West Medford LLC, DBA, Snappy Patties, 454 High Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operation in accordance Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong paper. My apologies. Public hearing will be held. I'm just going to go from the beginning. Legal notice, Medford City Clerk's Office notice of public hearing. Medford City Council, public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium, City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts. On April 30, 2024, at 7pm, a Zoom link to be posted no later than Friday, April 26, 2024, on a petition from Sias Properties, LLC, DBA, Pinky's Famous Pizza, 165 Main Street, Medford, MA 02155, for a special permit to amend its hours of operations in accordance with the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Size 94. 7.2.1 to operate extended hours of its business at 165 Main Street, Medford MA 02155 said site being located in apartment one district as follows extended hours of operation requested Monday to Thursday 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday Saturday Sunday 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. petition and plan may be seen in the office of the City Clerk Medford City Hall Medford MA call 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations the City of Medford is an EEO-AA-504 employer by order of the City Council Adam L. Hurtubise City Clerk So we are opening a discussion with the chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Do we have a petitioner from Pinky's Pizza? You can come to the podium and we will hear from you.
[Zac Bears]: So if you could give us your name and address and tell us, just give us a summary of your proposal.
[Zac Bears]: you. Thank you. Thank you. If I can't do that now, we can go to questions from members of Council. I'll go to Councilor start by the council.
[Zac Bears]: It makes sense, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, two o'clock is definitely... I don't think there are many licenses in the city, maybe one or two. 1 o'clock is a little more common, midnight more common than that. So we do have to align with that as well as we discussed with the Oasis permit. I will go to Councilor Leming for a question for the petitioner.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, I'm going to open the public hearing for anyone in favor, in opposition, or who would otherwise like to make a comment. Public hearing is open. Are you in favor of the petition?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there anyone who would like to comment at this time? Great. So if you could, we'll have him come. And if there's anyone on Zoom who would like to comment, please raise your hand on Zoom. Mr. D'Antonio, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Thank you. And it sounds like there is a motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting, May 14th, please, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue this public hearing to our next meeting on May 14th, and we'll be able to coordinate with them. And I think Councilor Scarpelli is coming up to do it right now, to talk with the building department and try to get to something that could work for everyone. And we'll have further conversations, and thank you for your willingness to work with us on that as well. All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to continue the public hearing to the May 14th regular meeting, seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, negative, motion passes. Hearing is continued to the date certain of May 14th. 24-074 offered by Council Vice President Collins be resolved with the Medford City Council review the annual surveillance report. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to table by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is this a table to a date certain of May 14th? Yes. Mr. Clerk, please follow.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Stroud is temporarily absent. Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion is tabled to our next regular meeting. 24-093, offered by Vice-President Collins and President Bears. be it resolved that the Medford City Council express its support of S. 1836 and H. 2963, an act relative to the payment of the organizations exempt from property tax, be it further resolved that the City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford Legislative Delegation as well as to the Chairs of the Joint Revenue Committee, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, and thank you for allowing me to co-sponsor this resolution. I've been working on pilot since 2017. We had many meetings with Mayor Burke in 2019. The joint Our Revolution Medford, Our Revolution Somerville pilot working group released an estimate that if Tufts paid property taxes on its currently exempt properties, it would pay $8 million a year to the city, which is a significant amount. One of the reasons that I've been working on this, and I worked with Representative Eiderhoven who filed this petition, in 2022 was on a panel, we did some interviews to try to get the word out there about this. This would only go up to 25% and it would only be 25% of what they would otherwise pay if they were not exempt. And it would also exempt any organization whose assets were less than $15 million. So it's not trying to go towards small nonprofit organizations. It's really the large hospitals and educational institutions who do not pay their fair share right now. So that would be $2 million more a year, and that was now five years ago. As everyone knows, property values have gone up by a couple billion dollars since then, so I'm sure it's a little bit more than that. In any case, the reason that it does not advance in the Statehouse is that Tufts and Harvard and MIT and many others pay hundreds of thousands of dollars each every year to fund an organization called the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, and they lobby the Statehouse to kill this bill every session. So that is something we can all call, all of our representatives are supportive of it. I believe Representative Barbara Garbally I believe Representative Donato, I'd have to double check, and Senator Jalen, but this is an important thing, and as we all know, the state controls so much of what cities and towns are allowed to do, so that's why it's important that we advocate to the state to allow us to do more here. There is also something that this council has submitted regarding Tufts, which is a lesser bar, it's something called the Institutional Master Plan Home Rule Petition, currently under zoning, We don't have nearly as much zoning authority over Tufts as we do over other private property exempt institutions, have exemptions through something called the Dover Amendment. We have asked that the State House give us the authority to require that Tufts tell us what they plan to do in terms of expansion and growth, a five-year master plan. That also has not advanced for we've put it up every every session that I've been a city councilor that has also been quashed and we do that alongside Somerville as well who shares that concern so you know it really is the city working hard on this you know Tufts decided I think in 2021 that they were going to unilaterally implement. They said, we'll give you a pilot of $450,000, and we're going to give $450,000 to Medford, $450,000 to Somerville, and $450,000 to Boston, and we don't really want to negotiate with you any more than that. So it is not sufficient in my view, and that's why I'm supportive of state legislation to give our city more authority to hold Tufts to pay its fair share to our community for the services that it uses that are paid for by the city of Medford. Any further discussion? Councilor Tseng, and then Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion on the topic? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: So my understanding of it is that it is about what properties qualify for exempt use under state law. The dormitories actually qualify for exempt use right now because they are for educational purposes, the housing of students for educational purposes. That's the definition that applies currently. My understanding is that at least the analysis and the legislation, if it were to move forward against the pay of the lobbyists, is for all of the exempt purposes, and essentially the analysis that was done five years ago was asking the city assessor, what is the assessed value of all the land that is currently exempt from the property tax in the city? And then you just apply the property tax rate to that amount to get the figure.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to add on that point. Part of the bill would also right now, tough says that they provide community benefits to the city, but of course, they don't quantify those benefits. This bill would also allow us to require them to tell us if you if you want to provide the money in cash, you know, if we would like to provide the money in cash for your brother, but we're happy to take community benefits. You just have to tell us what they're worth. So that it meets the amount.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, because this- Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: No, you can talk to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes. Harvard does have an exemption. Cambridge has an exemption for Harvard from some of the laws, which does help them access that. So that's one piece of it. And I will also note that the state is losing population and the fastest loss of population is between 20 and 40.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, actually I'm gonna go to Zoom, Maureen on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just to answer some of the questions, I can give you an answer to some of them. The only properties that were owned by nonprofits with assets over $15 million were Tufts University's many properties, as well as the former, what was Harvard Vanguard. That was purchased by Atrius Health. which is a for-profit corporation, and that money, that building is now taxed, the Atrius Health building here, but that was another organization that had over the threshold and was paying a pilot. And additionally, the Rivers Edge development was part of the Brownfields Mississippi Valley Development Corporation, and that was paying a pilot and is now moving to the tax rolls. So those are the major nonprofits that were paying pilots.
[Zac Bears]: I was very supportive of the endowment tax that you're talking about. And in terms of the affordable housing piece, the planning department does have the city's subsidized affordable housing inventory, the SHI, which is a list of all of the affordable housing units in the city. And that's what we use to keep track of affordable units that are deed restricted, as well as making sure that we are meeting the safe harbor requirements for 40 B. So that is maintained by the planning.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're going to go to Martha on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Castagnetti on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Isaac Bruce Beers II, if you want to go all the way.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Mr. Castagnetti.
[Zac Bears]: Walnut Hill Properties is the for-profit arm of Tufts University. They purchase properties, but they are taxed on those properties.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Anything further?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Roberta Cameron. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on the resolution?
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Um, on the motion. Any further discussion by members of the council members of public on the motion of Vice President Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I mean from another negative motion passes. Council vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Take paper two four zero nine two by vice president Collins. Seconded by Seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm affirming that the motion passes. To the Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council of Medford City Hall, Medford, Massachusetts, 02155, regarding the Community Preservation Committee appropriation request, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend your Honorable body approve the following recommendation of the Community Preservation Committee. requesting the appropriation of $287,500 from the CPA General Reserve to the Medford Historical Commission for the Thomas Brook Park Phase II restoration. The project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. The CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated. community preservation manager, Teresa Dupont, and Metro Historical Commission co-chair, Ryan Hayward, will be in attendance to address any questions. Thank you for considerations. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn mayor. From the Community Preservation Committee, dear Mr. President, the CPC has submitted one appropriation request for the below project. The intention of this communication is to provide a brief project summary for the benefit of council members. Thomas Brook Park phase two, the CPC has previously recommended and the city council approved funding for the restoration of Thomas Brook Park, a project managed by the Metro Historical Commission. We are pleased that the Historical Commission has utilized the previous funding strategically and expeditiously and is now shifting into their final restoration phase. Thomas Brooke Park is located adjacent to the Medford Brooks Estate and contains the presumed location of the original Brooks House. The Historical Commission is rehabilitating the landscaping to create a functional recreational space while celebrating and preserving Medford's history. A portion of this funding will be spent cleaning up the tree and landscaping debris left over from previous work. The CBC supports this project and voted unanimously to recommend funding with one member abstaining, as they are a member of the Historical Commission. I will go to our Community Preservation Coordinator and the chair of the, vice chair of the Historical Commission, Teresa Dupont and Ryan Hayward. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ryan. We also have the chair of the community preservation committee, Roberta Cameron. Roberta, if you'd like to share anything additional.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions by members of the council? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public in the chamber or on Zoom? Seeing none, on the motion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative. None negative. Motion passes. Is there a motion to revert to the regular order of business? There's a motion to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by my Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: 24-094 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. It be resolved that the City Council discuss subcommittee processes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: The council could of course authorize a committee to take action if it wanted to do so, but generally final disposition should occur on the council floor.
[Zac Bears]: It's going to the same list that all city communications go through.
[Zac Bears]: By your logic, the mayor's communications would also be campaigning.
[Zac Bears]: And that's- I signed the same letter in 2020.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli, if you read the letter, there's a section that says signed on behalf of the board, and then there's a section that says signed on behalf of the individual. Our names were included in the section that said signed on behalf of the individual.
[Zac Bears]: Is that a motion to amend the paper?
[Zac Bears]: So there's a motion on the floor by Councilor Scarpelli to amend the paper to request a legal opinion on whether city communications are campaign communications and whether the use of city title, the use of titles by city officials, could you, what the use of the titles?
[Zac Bears]: Right. Right. Okay. So thank you. I just want to do want to clarify that that letter did not do that.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just wanted to see, because the letter that I signed, which I also signed four years ago, and I'm going to go to Councilor, Vice President Collins, then Councilor Collins, and then Councilor Lazzaro. I signed one four years ago, I testified actually in public in favor of the transfer fee February 2020 at the State House, signed the same letter, is requesting the authority to give cities and towns the power to make the decision for themselves. So that's what the letter said, and I'm gonna go to Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, you're not done.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would note that many Councilors have signed many letters over many years advocating for the things that they care about and always have something to say on an issue.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you really violations are sir. Violations are the violations of telling the truth. So is that what the truth is? Yes, I'm my obligation as the chair is to state facts.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm incredibly disappointed. I'm disappointed that there are people who would miss our neighbors so that they feel like they need to move. I think that's shame. I'm disappointed. Vice President Collins. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, any comments on the transfer fee are out of order. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro, Vice President, sorry, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan first. I believe I did it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I spoke with Councilor Scarpelli about that, and I believe we are amending this to have some substance, but in the future, if there are motions to discuss in a vague way, I probably will rule them out of order.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor, if you could just share your comments with the chair.
[Zac Bears]: I'd like to go to Councilor Callahan, if I may. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, every item discussed by the City Council is discussed in multiple public meetings with the participation of the public.
[Zac Bears]: I can read the full text of that.
[Zac Bears]: So when we saw that, if I could read the full text.
[Zac Bears]: No, hold on a minute.
[Zac Bears]: The February 14th Planning and Permitting Committee meeting, 22-310, housing home rule petitions offered by Vice President Bears and Councilor Collins, whereas the city of Medford and greater Boston region are in the midst of a deep housing crisis that is displacing residents and families. and whereas the City of Medford saw a 15% year-over-year increase in average rents from March 2021 to March 2022, and a 5% increase in average rents from February 22 to March 2022, according to WGBH News, and whereas many Medford residents are facing significant rent increase or other methods of displacement from rental units, now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that the Housing Subcommittee meet to discuss the potential drafting of home rule petitions on the following policies to protect Medford residents facing housing instability, and a lack of affordable housing options, bullet point rent stabilization, tenant right to purchase, tenant right to counsel, just cause eviction protections, regulation of upfront lease fees, anti-price housing protections, and exemptions for small owner-occupant landlords. Be it further resolved that the housing subcommittee discuss a potential council resolution supporting H1378 and S886, an act enabling local options for tenant protections currently under consideration by the Massachusetts legislature. So it was a pretty specific notice.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, to be honest, it's just like. We're spending a bunch of time talking about a couple of semantic issues. There was a resolution 24-015. Semantics for you. Well, it's semantics in general. But it's 24-015 did not explicitly say that the committee could issue the newsletter itself and therefore the committee should have referred something back to the council. the council could absolutely vote to say this committee shall do X. We keep papers in committee all the time and meet on them multiple times. We just have done it three times in the past two weeks on the city budget. So you are correct. And we have sent out motions from that committee to the administration without them coming before this council. Additionally, we've approved committee reports coming from the committee. So arguably it was approved tonight. So there's a lot of ways that it happens. I think that's why we're talking about Semantics, I think at this point it would probably be helpful if someone were to file a resolution that formally said the committee can do this. But yeah, it's a real good use of our time.
[Zac Bears]: I deserve also the respect that every other council has ever gotten when they sign a letter. You keep talking from the chair. Well, just, you know. Any further discussion on the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Great, is there a motion to call to question, or do we want to hear from the, do we want to go to public participation? Any further comments from councilors? Hearing no other motions, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: How is it related to the subcommittee processes, if I may ask?
[Zac Bears]: I think it, um, uh, yeah, I think it would be relevant to the, uh, home rule petitions paper. Um, okay, if that is fine, but I'll Councilor. Will you prefer me to wait? I'm happy to wait. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I appreciate that. Name and address for the record, please. Good evening.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, you can deliver the petition to Larry. He will keep it on file. And what happened, there's two things here. So there was a letter written to the state house about a piece of legislation proposed by the governor, the Affordable Homes Act. and specifically a portion of that legislation, which would authorize cities and towns to discuss the implementation of a fee, a real estate transfer fee. As individual city councilors and as the council president and vice president, we signed on to the letter supporting that legislation. That is separate from the in-council proposal for a discussion of a home rule petition and subcommittee. So those are two different things.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I don't think it was taken that way. Point of information. I'm going to go. Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yes, and that's what we're doing in the committee. I also, as a councillor, signed a letter about something I think the state should let all cities and towns do. This is why people were allowed because you used your titles. That's all. Okay. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm going to go to Maureen D. on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please. Maureen, I'm going to ask you to unmute.
[Zac Bears]: And we were representing, as you noted, municipal officers and Councilor Collins and I are two municipal officers.
[Zac Bears]: you look at the signatures on the letter, there's a section for people who are signing on behalf of the body and officers who are signing as individuals, and Vice President Collins and I were signed under the section representing individuals.
[Zac Bears]: The issues we are certainly working on all of those issues we've had, you know, dozens of meetings in the past few months, touching on every subject that you said, but again, you know, we were actually literally as elected officials signing a public letter so that the public would know. our position on the local option transfer fee and the Affordable Homes Act. So as individual Councilors, we were sending a letter to inform the public about our opinion on an issue. The individual Councilors signing on to public statements does not have to go through any sort of council process. So that's how that works. Vice President Collins, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to second the motion.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to call the question seconded by Councilor Lemme.
[Zac Bears]: It's a public letter.
[Zac Bears]: Green? I can't I don't know. I don't. I don't know what news people read. I don't know what letters people read. I do not control that. On the motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, to call the question. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: It's a motion to call the question. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a motion to call the previous question. It's undebatable. It's a police order.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 for everyone. The negative motion passes on the rule for the previous question that's initiates a 15 minute period where Councilors may further debate the calling of the question. Each Councilor can speak for up to, I believe, two minutes. Other councillors would like to speak further on the matter?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do councillors have any further on this paper? The motion is the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to discuss the City Council subcommittee processes. And also, there were two amendments to the motion. Could you read back the amendments to the motion, Mr. Clerk?
[Zac Bears]: Can we further amend that to give the impression to a reasonable person?
[Zac Bears]: I was not at that point, no.
[Zac Bears]: My apologies for that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. So the rule 23 on the previous question, members must gain the floor part of making such a motion, which Vice President Collins did. A motion must receive a second. It received one by Councilor Leming. All further amendment or debate of the main question shall be suspended until the previous question is decided. On the previous question, non-exceeding 15 minutes shall be allowed for debate, which shall be confined to giving reasons why the main question should not be put to an immediate vote. And no member shall speak for more than two minutes after such debate. A majority vote shall be sufficient to end debate on the main question and require an immediate vote. Is there any further debate on why the previous question should not be put on paper 24-094? Councilor Callahan. It's not debate on the merits of the main question. It's debates on why we should continue debate. Thank you. Any further discussion on why we should continue debate? Seeing none, on the motion on the main question on the paper proposed by Councilor Scarpelli as amended by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Is there a second on the main paper? Seconded by Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: No, three in the affirmative, four in the negative, the motion fails. 24-096, resolution offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour of all firehouses in the city. Be it resolved that the City Council finalize dates for a walking tour to all firehouses in the city.
[Zac Bears]: I believe we have reached. Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I wanted to speak on that. The home rule petition is the next paper. I believe we have a date for this. Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes. Everybody tried, I believe at least four of us will be able to attend the 18th at 1030. Any further discussion? Do you want to vote on it or do you want to withdraw it? Yep. On the motion, on the withdrawal, the motion is withdrawn, 24-096. 24-097, be it resolved, the City Council discuss processes dealing with possible home rule petitions. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: I believe, actually, that if the mayor chooses not to submit it, that the council cannot overrule her.
[Zac Bears]: I believe so, yes.
[Zac Bears]: So we sent 6-1 last year, the home rule petitions on the budget and the charter ballot questions. Those were sent to her 6-1. She did not return them and she did not submit them. There is no legal requirement under state law, according to the meetings we had with council about that for her to return it to us. And we cannot override her decision.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you. And I think, yeah, just to go into it just a little more. Any Councilor could put a resolution on the agenda to request that this council as a collective body submit a home rule petition to the legislature requesting that the city have the authority to do something that it currently does not have the authority to do. For example, we've submitted a home rule petition to ask Tufts to do the institutional master plan. A charter change would be a home rule petition. The transfer fee was a home rule petition. So that's this body acting collectively to request that state allowed the body to take an action, authorized the city to take action. Many home rule petitions have been granted, and there are many special acts that apply to the city of Medford. But as Councilor Scarpelli noted, a councillor would propose that it would be on a regular meeting agenda. Um, that could be referred to a committee as the charter ballot questions were last year. Um, those were then, uh, discussed in committee, referred back to the regular council. The council voted to send them by a 6 to 1 vote. The mayor decided not to send them to the statehouse, and therefore they died at that point. Um, if the mayor had sent them to the statehouse, then the state house would consider the petitions. Technically, they would be entered in by our representatives and senator into the general court as a piece of legislation. Then that piece of legislation would have to pass through the state house and the state senate and be signed by the governor, at which point the law, there would be a law of the state of Massachusetts, and that law would say that the city of Medford is authorized to do X. So that is the process. Any discussion by members of the council on the process for a home rule petition? Seeing none, discussion by members of the public. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Penta.
[Zac Bears]: We go to Sharon on zoom name and address record, please. Sharon DSL on zoom name and address. Sharon on zoom.
[Zac Bears]: In address for record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm happy to respond. I think a few things are being conflated. So what we were talking about on March 12th was a home rule petition for this city council to craft a request to the state to allow Just Medford to implement a real estate transfer fee. You were quoting me and saying, those things don't pass. I completely agree with that. It was it was Anna. I thought it was me. So sorry. I basically think the same thing. If we were to have the committee meeting on the Home Rule petition, we were to report it out of committee, the mayor were to send it to the legislature, but probably go in the same place that the other 18 Home Rule petitions have gone, which is the trash bin. Separately, there's three things at play here. There's the home rule petition by the city council and the mayor to request permission for the city to do something. There's the legislation that is at the state house, which would authorize all cities and towns to implement something. And then there's what ordinance we would actually pass in the city. I support local control on this issue. I think that the state should give cities and towns, all of them the permission, including what was in that letter, to implement whatever transfer fee those cities and towns want to implement. I don't think that my position on what we should implement in Medford should constrain what the people of Nantucket want to implement in Nantucket. So I support a broad local option allowing cities and towns to do something that they want to do. And I don't think that we should impose our conditions and our politics on other communities. And I think that all communities should have the local control on this issue. What you quoted at the beginning is what all of us said, we would be comfortable passing in Medford. which is high-end transactions targeted at the high-end real estate. So there's three pieces. I support a broad local option for all cities and towns to implement a transfer fee. That's different because I believe cities and towns need a lot more authority because the state constrains our authority to do basically anything, so we aren't able to address the problems that people have. That's entirely different from what ordinance on a transfer fee I think Medford should pass if we were given that authority. So those are the three pieces, and I hope that clarifies my position on the issue.
[Zac Bears]: I don't want someone... I just think it shouldn't apply in Mexico. I just think that the full amount should not be here in Medford. I don't think that I should impose my opinion on the people of another city. So that's my position. I support local control for communities, and I also have specific opinions about what I believe Medford should implement.
[Zac Bears]: And I have two convictions. One is local control, and one is what the ordinance should look like in the city. That's fine. Thank you. Vice President Collins, since you also signed the letter.
[Zac Bears]: And I would note that we voted seven to zero on the pilot legislation. which is getting wiped out every session. Because we think it's a good idea, even though we don't have confidence that the State House will actually approve the legislation. Councilor Callahan. Sorry, Councilor Lemmie, Councilor- yeah, my bad. We usually have a button and it would show me a list. So, we're getting that back.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Yep. Any further comment by members of the council? We have Martha Andres on Zoom. Martha, name and address for the record, please. Martha, for some reason we can't hear you. You're unmuted, but we can't hear you. Could someone check with Shane? We still can't hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Yep, we can hear you. Martha, it looks like there might be an issue with your microphone. You may need to join audio or reset your microphone. In the meantime, I will go to the podium. Eileen Lerner, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Let's go back to Martha. Let's try this again. Martha, name and address for the record, please. We still can't hear you, Martha. There is a phone call in on the agenda if you want to try to call in by phone and we could recognize you if you go to the agenda on the city website or on our agenda and meeting portal, but we can't hear you right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Martha, we'll try to come back to you again. I'm going to go to Bill on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Martha, you want to try again? You're still unmuted. Go back to the podium, Gaston, and if you don't mind, we're on the second round. If we could just keep it a little shorter, but yeah, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Don't you agree that they're, depending on the structure of the transfer fee and what the threshold was and what the number of units would have applied to, therefore restricting the parcels and structures that would be considered, there could be substitution effects that would change the who would be the buyer, and that that may be a preferential outcome for the city?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I get it. You just used the word average buyer. And if we're talking about corporate transactions.
[Zac Bears]: If we're talking about large buyers, those would not be the average buyer.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, you're right. Yes, Councilor Kelly and then Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I do not have the authority under the Supreme Judicial Court to police the content at the podium, and I also have a simultaneous duty as the chair to state facts. So sometimes that will be in dispute with the principle you just said, but I generally agree with the principle that you just stated. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Approve what?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Collins, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Did you amend it to report it out or it's just we discussed it? We discussed it. Got it, okay. Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we didn't have anything that needed to go out.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative. The motion is received and placed on file. President Bears? Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Vice President Collins to join papers 24086, 24087, 24088, 24089, 24090, and 24091 and approve. And I'll just read those. These are requests for Hormel Stadium food trucks, requests for a food truck permit for Penny Packers, May 4th at Hormel Stadium. They are fantastic. I'm sure the rest of them are, but I know that one. Food truck permit for Trolley Dogs, May 17th, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Planning with a Scorpio, May 26, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Work Hard, Eat Good, June 2, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. Food Truck Permit for Bocadillos, June 28, 2024 at Hormel Stadium. And Food Truck Permit for Hungry Nomads, June 22, 2024 at Nomad Stadium. Mr. Clerk, could you let me know, is this related to the Boston Glory, the Frisbee team that's playing at Hormel Stadium? It most certainly is, and the clerk loves it. He would like to be requested to throw out the first toss.
[Zac Bears]: I know. Has already done the first toss. Add a great slight to the clerk and this council.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to join and approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70 in favor, none negative, motion passes. We have two things in unfinished business. Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the second one. Got it. So on the motion of Vice President Collins to take papers 22494 and 2224080 off the table. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: They're taking off the table. 22494 is the button budget ordinance first in City Council after I believe six or seven committee meetings at which it was duly debated, discussed in public for an incredibly long this is a budget that was proposed in, uh, 12 months. Um 2 to 494 initially proposed in 2022. Um this budget ordinance we are now following for this year. It codifies into law, a process by which the council and the mayor's office will collaborate on the budget. We have been having preliminary budget meetings much earlier than we have in the past, and we are hearing from our and we have now had some timely financial reporting, and the ordinance requires further timely financial reporting going forward in all future years. So that is, I think, a significant improvement over some recent conditions. And with that, we approved it for first reading on March 19th, 2024. It was advertised in the Medford Transcript and Summerville Journal on April 11th, 2024, and it is now eligible for a third reading today, Tuesday, April 30th, 2024. Is there a motion on the floor? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve for third reading, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: To be ordained, indeed.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And the affirmative, none the negative. The motion passes and the budget ordinance is ordained. 24080, the amendment proposed by the mayor, April 16th, 2024, to the personnel ordinance to increase the position of the supervisor of water and sewer. I guess I better get it right. I think it was from PW 18 to 19, but we can check. Give me one moment. And that's what it is. It is the motion to amend language of PW 18 shall be amended to remove the following position and language of PW 19 be amended to include the following position supervisor of water and sewer. We did receive a communication from the administration that there is not an active arbitration of grievance claim on this, and I believe. Councilor Scarpelli has moved to waive the three readings and move for approval for third reading this evening. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan, is there any objection by any councilor? It does require unanimous vote to waive all three readings. Seeing none, on the motion to ordain, to approve for third reading and ordain this change to the personnel ordinance by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. Motion passes. And we just spent four minutes doing lawmaking, which was nice. And I mean to say that very specifically because often the most important work we do happens at the end of a meeting after 10 or 15 public meetings. And we just passed a budget ordinance for the first time in the city, so I'm very happy about that. There is public participation. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in public participation? And we have one person who'd like to speak in public participation. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your comment. I can just speak for myself and Vice President Collins. I'll just speak for myself. You can speak for yourself. I have been in communication with the mayor and the Medford police since Friday about this issue and trying to liaise with protesters to implore Tufts to reach a negotiated solution. And I also do not support the use of public resources to address this protest by force. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just add that there are other campuses that have been able to reach agreements with protesters to maintain the protests. And I believe that Tufts has the capacity to do the same thing. I would also add, speaking directly to the conversation that we had tonight about the number of city resources that go to Tufts when they do not pay property taxes, that is particularly galling that they would ask us to use them to displace protesters. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the Council? Any further discussion by Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public? Seeing none in the chamber, I will go to Bill Giglio on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Mr. Castagnetti. Mr. Castagnetti name and address.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to adjourn seconded by Councilor Nishikawa. Please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Negative. I'm sorry. Negative. Motion. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole, April 30th, 2024. It's called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Four present, three absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting in the Medford City Council Committee Hall at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts, and by Zoom. The action discussion item for this meeting is the annual budget process for Fiscal 25 preliminary budget meeting. This is the third preliminary budget meeting of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget process. The mayor has communicated that the following departments will be present. The executive department, the Oracle Mall Commission, the Licensing Commission, and the Recreation Department. We will be hearing from those budgets tonight. We also have a budget meeting tomorrow night with several more departments, and we'll be having further meetings over the next couple of weeks. Just as a reminder to everyone about the budget schedule, we are following the new budget ordinance, which is soon to be finalized. It is actually up for third reading tonight at the City Council regular meeting at 7 o'clock. The budget schedule as follows is that by 1 March, the City Council—individual City Councilors will submit their individual budget recommendations. for consideration by the council. By Friday, March 22nd, 2024, the council will go to submit a collective budget recommendation to the mayor. That has all happened. We did receive a response from the mayor. From April 15th, 2024 to May 15th, 2024, we'll be holding preliminary budget meetings with our department heads. That's what this meeting is, and we have had two already, and we'll have several ahead of us. And then by Friday, May 31st, the mayor will submit the budget to the city council for final consideration. Um, so far at the meetings, we've been hearing from our department budgets. Um, we did also last week here from the finance director who did give a presentation on the revenue projection for the fiscal year. Um, but as I said, we are hearing from departments tonight and generally I've been asking four questions to every department. Um, just, you know, what was your budget requests and what, what does it consist of? Uh, was there anything that was not requested this year that your department might be looking for in future budgets? Then you can share anything you'd like to share about your department narrative, the work you've done over the past year, or what you're planning to do over the next year. And then I'll just remind everyone that after the formal budget is submitted, I'm guessing, given the budgets we're seeing tonight, that there won't be much change between tonight and what ends up being submitted at the end of May. But if there is some change that either we wanted to ask a question about, or if the administration wants to have you come back, we may invite you back in June. But we may not. Also, if you guys would like to be invited back, if there's something you don't have tonight, like a narrative or some project you want to talk about, we do want to give everyone the opportunity to share what their department is doing. So that's basically how the process has been working this year. It's a little bit new, but with that, I'm happy to take, unless the Madam Chief of Staff will take the Recreation Department, and we will hear from our director, Kevin Bailey. We have, as far as I can tell from here, we have the Recreation Department. Top to the bottom line budget for the general fund is 312,685, and that includes the permanent employees, the part-time employees, and basically the only change here is there's been a somewhat small increase in the pay for the employees, and there was a slight reduction in the sick leave incentive and the stipends, and that the total change in the budget is $8,850 and that is all fixed cost growth he raises for non-unit employees. So with that, I will go to you, Kevin, if you want to say what your request entails, if there's anything that you may want in the future that we're not requesting this year, and then share a little bit about what your department's been up to and what you plan to do over the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, and I just want to recognize that Councilor Tseng is with us on Zoom. Councilor Callahan has joined us.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Kevin. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then if anyone else wants to join in.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you guys so much. Just to clarify on the energy assessment for the parking lot. Yeah, it's for overhead
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion to request an energy assessment for the Hormel parking lot for solar to power the the hockey rink. Second. There's also a motion, or the same motion, a request to consider a split position for administrative support for the Recreation Department, potentially split with another department. Thank you. By Councilor Scarpelliglia, seconded by Councilor Leming, and we'll take the motions at the end of the meeting. Any further questions for our Recreation Department? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further questions or discussion? Kevin, will you do Hormel tonight?
[Zac Bears]: I'll just very quickly say that the Hormel budget for the Hormel Commission, if I can get to it, is budgeted for no change, $3,900 for stipend for the boards and commissions, and then a $1,500 stipend, I believe that's for the staff support for the Hormel Commission. And if there's anything else you want to talk about Hormel Stadium or the commission?
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: It's kind of backwards, isn't it? Thank you. If I could follow up on Councilor Scarpelli's question about the sound system at Hormel. I'm glad to hear about the conduit, and I think our videographer, Shane, may have had something to do with some of the repairs, so thanks, Shane. But I think there's also, you know, The band had their great award-winning show last year, and I think the cheer team had a song program as well, and the sound quality itself was just really underwhelming, I think is a fair comment. So if there is any sort of ability to maybe try to improve on that front, I mean, I think it's fine for like doing vocal announcements and kind of doing the play-by-play, but when you try to pump music through that thing, it's pretty rough. And so I know that that was, you know, something that I think would have been nice to, if it was a little bit of a higher quality, I think it would have been nice for everybody, at least I was at the Thanksgiving game, and you know, when we win a Thanksgiving game, which is starting to happen more, it's nice to have that for everyone who's also showing off their big shows at halftime and stuff like that. So I just wanted to throw that comment in. But I'm glad to hear that at least we're not chewing through everything at this point with our squirrels.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Great. Any further questions about the Hormel Commission, Hormel Stadium? Seeing none, thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Danny. Thank you. Glad to have you here. And if there's anything you want to come back in June and talk about, we'll be more than happy to have you.
[Zac Bears]: We'll see you in a few months. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. The last two budgets we have for tonight are the Executive Department and the Licensing Commission. And I believe we have the Chief of Staff, Nina Nazarian, present those budgets. I'm guessing you want to take executive first. So I think I have here, I'll just read it off. You have a total budget of $667,696.68. That's up from $640,390. And these costs are salaries, non-union increases, and the ending of ARPA. 10% of the communications director's salary is in ARPA. And it also looks like the special project administrator position is going down in terms of hours, and some of the positions in the executive department are funded by outside sources. So it looks like all of the growth and costs for the department is fixed cost growth for staff for their pay. And with that, I'll turn it over to you to share whatever you'd like to share, and also to let us know if there's anything. I mean, obviously, it's the executive department, you would probably know best about your own department of, you know, if you're going to request from the mayor for the mayor to put something in the budget. But if there's anything in the future that you're considering for your department that wasn't included this year, we'd love to hear about it.
[Zac Bears]: So if you want to treat this as the nuts and bolts and leave the big show for the big budget presentation, I certainly wouldn't mind because we are at 653. But if you'd like to share highlights, we've invited every department to share that as well. So you're welcome to do so.
[Zac Bears]: Sure. Go right ahead. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, would you like to present the License Commission budget? I see it here as budgeted fiscal 24, 5,800, 5,400 for stipends and 400 for office supplies and budgeted for fiscal 25, the same amount, no change.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Sure. Great. Any further questions for the chief of staff on the license commission? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, can you redirect the motions for the meeting? Great, is there a motion to refer that motion to the administration and to adjourn?
[Zac Bears]: I'll motion to refer that to the administration for a response and to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Fleming. Too late.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean, affirmative. None of the negative. The questions are referred to the administration and the meeting is adjourned.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council 12th regular meeting June 24, 2025 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise.
[Zac Bears]: Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25-100 offered by Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears. Whereas the Medford City Council has learned with deep sadness of the passing of Richard Caraviello, who passed away June 3rd, 2025, at the age of 93. And whereas Richard Caraviello was a devoted son of the late Salvatore and Maria Contrada Caraviello, and a beloved husband to the late Angela Moscow Caraviello, and the late Mildred Tarifo. And whereas Richard honorably served his country in the United States Army during the Korean War, and has continued to serve his community as the longtime proprietor of Salve Sportwear, a business known for quality women's clothing and family values, and where as Richard's father to Richard Caraviello and his wife Carol, a proud grandfather to Richard and his wife Lisa, Lauren and her husband Joey Mangello, and Nicole and her husband Stephen Gaudet, and a cherished great-grandfather to Gianna, Joey, Richie, Nicholas, Juliana, Isabella, James and Michael, and whereas Richard was a dear brother of the late Fred, Salvatore, Junie, Frank, Smokey, Tina, Clara, and Armand Caraviello, and is lovingly remembered by many nieces and nephews, extended family members, and friends, and whereas Richard Caraviello will be remembered as a man of his humble service and unwavering pride in his Medford roots, now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its sincerest condolences to the Caraviello family and expresses its heartfelt appreciation for the life, service, and legacy of Richard Caraviello, and be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the records of the Medford City Council and a suitably engrossed copy be presented to the Caraviello family as a lasting expression of sympathy and gratitude. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I served with Rick for four years.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Chair Collins, thanks for this update and the presentation. Super helpful to see. I just had a couple questions. One, just could you go a little bit more into when you mentioned that as site plan review is being discussed at the state level, could you go a little bit more into what those discussions look like? And, you know, what is, you know, is that a change, a legislative change or something else and what the likelihood of that happening in the near term is?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And thank you. I'm now seeing the, uh, the bill, um, taking a look at it.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it looks like it's been reported favorably, but now it's sitting, so who knows what that means. President Bears, for the record, what's the bill number? It is H3551.
[Zac Bears]: So at least that's one that the NMLA sent a comment letter in on in December.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah, it looks like it's still alive. So that's more than you can say for a lot of bills in the legislature in April of the second year of the term. A couple other questions. So just so I understand the timeline, we are, is it fair to say that mainly what will be being worked on before June 30th are the definition questions, the site plan review questions, the update to the formats of the table of use, and I saw the digital, the GIS zoning map, or is that basically what we're working on between now and June 30th?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. And last thing is just a On the memo format, I think the memo is great. I think these presentations are fantastic. I think just a minor thing that might be helpful, at least would be helpful to me on the memo format is on the topics table. If we could split it out so that anything that's being considered in phase one is kind of in its own, or the proposed changes table, sorry. Anything that's being considered in phase one, be it like its own table and then anything that's maybe going after that. just be in a second table. The formatting could just stay the same, but I just think it's almost, you know, if it was an Excel spreadsheet, I would just sort it, you know, but that would just be helpful for me to kind of see what we're doing sooner rather than later, or at least considering doing sooner rather than later. And then I think also what might be valuable to include in the status memo and somewhere, you know, I'm not sure as I look through it exactly where maybe it would be, just before the topics table, or maybe just after the topics table, would be pulling out those items that we've already identified as needing further study. I know that that's going to be part of what we're doing in mapping over the next couple months, but I know we had a discussion in a recent meeting about the inclusionary, the transportation demand management, the linkage, and the need for the nexus study. And then we were also talking about, with planning development and sustainability, the neighborhood studies and the various grants that were RFPs put out, grants acquired. I think it might be useful to have a table that includes those items, just so that we can see how long that list is getting, if it starts to get longer, since those are the few items that will really take you know it's that where we may need to go out and get more funding or find more grants or have a six month or 12 month you know period where a study is happening so um that would just be another minor format change that would be helpful for me to see but otherwise this is uh you know i'm really excited um and i feel like having these memos updated every two weeks is a great way for us to just keep you know chugging and uh checking boxes and getting work done so thank you
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Chair Collins. This may be a left fielder, so take it with what it is. When we talk about site plan review, I know that the 40B process is entirely outside of site plan review, but I just, you know, I see how often the ZBA is meeting on 40Bs and kind of negotiating these different projects. And, you know, some of them have, you know, not speaking to the process or to how the ZBA is handling it, because I'm sure they're doing everything that they need to be doing. It just does seem to be like it's a time consuming amount of time that the ZBA is spending on it. And I do know of at least one project where the time may have been determinative in future actions. And I'm just wondering if there's anything, is there anything that we can do in zoning to around the 40B process that isn't good in any way, you know, make that happen in a more timely manner or not have the ZBA having these extended, you know, four, five, six meeting sessions on 40B. And also, I'd be happy if chair or director Hunt or planner Evans has comments on that. I'm sure they have thoughts on it as well. And I also raise this in the context that we just had another 40B application, so.
[Zac Bears]: to clarify, is there some way we could create zoning that would encourage people to go a different path? Because I think that the reason for 40B's existence and wanting more affordable housing, all of that's fantastic. Great. But sometimes you have less than ideal outcomes from the 40B process where you can't do the mixed use. You can't do the larger planning. You can't align it with comp plan. So that kind of thing, too, I want to throw out there. But I'll stop. since I'm probably the least informed person on this.
[Zac Bears]: great. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I guess more my point is, it sounds like we could do an overlay or a PDD faster than we could. And it's again, I get why the ZBA is doing this on the 40B side, because it's outside of our zoning entirely, but it just seems like a less than ideal procedural. Yeah. It's really more my fault, throwing it out there.
[Zac Bears]: see and note that that recesses for public work. Got it.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you guys for being here. So one of the issues that we have, I think, in our community is we have We have a local Chodo, and it's meant for community housing, but they're really small. They're doing, you know, a few units here, a few units there. So I think we have a hard time accessing home funds and then none of the really none of the bigger nonprofit, you know, affordable housing folks are focused on the city. So we don't have those partnerships. Do you guys have suggestions as to how we can build stronger partnerships or convince one of these larger groups to say that they want to add Metro to their catchment area? Because I think those are really some of the key missing links that we have to to accessing the funds and getting the project experience to coordinate the projects here in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and have you seen any communities recently that you've been able to work with, that people at MHP have been able to work with, that have grown a Chodo like that, that have been able to see some of that success.
[Zac Bears]: Just that we should receive the presentation and place it on file. Oh, thanks. Withdrawal. Were there any motions out of the zoning in the first half of the meeting? No. Okay. I couldn't remember. Um, yes, a motion to receive in place the training and presentation from Mass Housing Partnership on file. Great.
[Zac Bears]: And adjourned. Make it all one.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thanks for being here. Both of you. I think that it's a good sign that there's been some improvement. Seems like we're a little better off than we thought a couple of years ago in the initial plan. So I think that's that's really a strong sign. I do have a few questions. It does seem. You know, some roads are we have an improvement, an increase in the do nothing. We're in a good situation. So that's good. Basically, the routine maintenance of our miles in the same place, the preventative maintenance miles has gone down, but the base rehabilitation miles has gone up. And those are the most expensive streets. The report says that the. The recommendation is essentially to have a really substantial full resurfacing program in place to try to keep the structural improvement and moving that back up into preventative maintenance, just avoiding streets falling into the base rehabilitation. Is that something that the highway crew, if there were a highway crew to run the machines, would be able to do?
[Zac Bears]: And that would be like a more comprehensive resurface and taking a larger area. Yep. And that avoids going into base rehabilitation.
[Zac Bears]: And that seems like a major priority. Do you have a range on what it would, uh, you know, you said coming from two to three times a month to two to three times a week, do you have a range of what it might cost to have the staff level to do that for your team?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. To go from the two to three times a month to two to three times a week.
[Zac Bears]: And that'd be operating budget for your, that'd be staff essentially to run these machines regularly, more regular than staff and staff.
[Zac Bears]: My only other question, and I know that it is difficult to, you know, figure out exactly what the value of, say, the Eversource repaving on Winthrop Street is, or the various utility projects or developments that are upgrading roads and sidewalks are. But I do think I appreciate the mid-millions range, the mid seven figures range put out there. But at least this plan, there's a pretty significant, I could argue that 3.5 million is in the mid-millions, and I could argue that six million is in the mid-millions. And if those are the two kind of baseline scenarios here to address the backlog and you know the 6 million. we end up almost 30 million lower than we do at the three and a half million. So if there would be some way for us to at least have an estimate, I understand that it'd be difficult to say, you know, ever sources was worth this much money. So we had 6.21 million this year. I get that that's really not necessarily possible, but something to say, here's what we know. We spent some bond money on this. We spent chapter 90 on this. We think the utility value and developer value was a million or 2 million in that range. you know, something so that we could compare annual spending to these suggestions.
[Zac Bears]: It's a little better because of that.
[Zac Bears]: It deflates to how much we actually need to pay in the future.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, and I appreciate that, and that's great that that's being done. I think even if it's not 100%, just being able to say we're closer to 6 million than 3.5 million, this is kind of, you know, the investments we've been able to make. And I think it's important for people to know too, right, like that specific, how much is coming from the utility side, right? We can make the case like we need this additional investment because we're not going to have Eversource doing three miles every year or every two years, right? That's an important thing to be able to say.
[Zac Bears]: Right. And I think that's just helpful. It's like, what are the sources, whether it's Citi, Chapter 90 bond, utilities, that's getting us towards the six million so that we're making that steady improvement. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: And it's almost like there's two, buckets here, it's all the stuff to do to make sure a road doesn't get so bad, and then you have to spend a million and a half to do a road if it's that bad, and trying to keep the roads out of that. And it seems like that's, it seems like we've done a little bit of both, right? Like there's some roads that are in a better shape, but now there's a bunch of roads that are now in that bottom bucket, and that's the one where you're talking about big numbers and backlog. But my other question was on the sidewalks. I saw that the report I think is saying we need to spend about $2.5 million a year on sidewalks, or it says recommends the city continue to implement a baseline of $2.5 million to maintain current network conditions. So the aggregate total would be $6 million plus the $2.5 million, $8.5 million. Yes. Okay. Got it. And it does seem like the
[Zac Bears]: Just one, I noticed the sidewalk material that, which I'm assuming is asphalt, that stayed the same price, but Portland cement's gone up $3 a square foot. Is the city going to move to using asphalt for our sidewalks, or are we going to stick with cement?
[Zac Bears]: It was double the cost that you're talking about it being a significant cost.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think that was the justification from DCR. Oh, it's a little bit cheaper to use asphalt and it's a little bit cheaper to repair asphalt.
[Zac Bears]: Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: you know, quality aspect of it is the flip side.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Not a question, but I did just want to note coming out of the financial task force press release from last month that working on what we've been talking about here around an in-house crew, which has been a priority of this council, since I've been on it, and since before I've been on it, it's clearly a priority of the department. It's something that the leadership of the school, well, the city council and the mayor are considering bringing forth as something to ask the residents to support, and I think This evidence, the evidence that we've seen in this report and what we've been talking about, and quite frankly, just the overwhelming public sentiment around the condition of our streets and sidewalks, more than indicates that that is a valuable investment to make. So I'm hopeful that it will be something we'll be able to do collectively and together to start really working on even more of this than we've been able to work on so far.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. And just a note, we'll be reconvening, planning and permitting.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. We sent a paper to this committee to discuss the creation of a home rule petition.
[Zac Bears]: petition for a real estate transfer fee to discuss the before let's sort of about set a paper to committee to discuss the creation of paper committee to discuss and then you can delete the second there's two committee twice in there I think similarly under the rent stabilization, would ask the state to give the city of Medford the permission to... Wait, would ask the state to... Instead of the word for, just to give the city of Medford the...
[Zac Bears]: It's going out to the city listserv, so it's going out to the same listserv that all the mayor's communications go out to.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of edits under the general business. If you could scroll up just so we could see that. Could you make the committee structure a separate bullet? So after that first sentence, and then it should be, can we just say that it was technically two different papers. So we also, we voted to establish a new committee structure with the following seven committees. Okay. All right. So we also didn't even have to say also, we just, we voted. to establish a... Oh, what is that? Okay, it's editing the stuff I've deleted. You can just click before the created to see and create it. Yeah. Wait, we voted to establish. We can get rid of created. And if we could change it to committee structure with the following seven committees. Yeah. And if we could alphabetize, I think if you just copy administration and finance, then it should be administration and finance would be first, then education and culture.
[Zac Bears]: And then resident services and public engagement will be at the end.
[Zac Bears]: Last but certainly not least. Okay. And then my only other comment, I think this is really great. Wait, which section? Actually, I have two. Now I have two. It looks like NSAssociates just said twice. End NS, OK. And maybe that comma should be a period. Associates, wait. Or after ltd, it should be which has worked, something, comma, which has worked, or who have worked.
[Zac Bears]: And then I forwarded you just right as this meeting was starting, an email for the very beginning. One of the things that I, in my former career as a writer, Starting with the lead is always important. And I emailed you a suggested- I'm a scientist, so you could see that I just- It's technical. It's technical. It is technical. I emailed you and the clerk a suggested change to that paragraph, that whole paragraph. Yeah. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah, that last lead changes all I have. My only other suggestion that I will stop impinging on your meeting is I think it might be valuable if the committees also went in alphabetical order, like the sections.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the whole April 23rd 2024 is called the order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present 6 present, 1 absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting in the Medford City Council, Committee of the Whole, 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford, MA, and via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss paper 24-045, the annual budget process for fiscal 25. This is a preliminary budget meeting. And tonight this is the second preliminary budget meeting of the FY 25 budget process. The mayor has communicated the following presentations will occur in the following departments will be present. We will have a presentation by director finance director Bob Dickinson on the budget. as it stands now, kind of the top lines of the budget, and we will also hear from the legislative department, which is the city council, the city clerk, and the finance department. So we are all here and we are all present. Given that, I will turn it over to the chief of staff and the finance director, Nina Nazarian and Bob Dickinson, to give us the first look at our fiscal 25 budget, as well as a financial update.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just to clarify that too, you can go, the Division of Local Services has a great website online where you can see the cherry sheet. You can see the historical cherry sheet and also the estimates of different budgets. Thank you, Shane, for giving us a booster for the microphone. And I think the other thing to note, maybe just backing up right to the beginning here, tonight we're basically just talking about the general fund budget. we're not talking about water store enterprise and then we're not talking about anything else special revenue funds or other fee fee or grant funded essentially things that are outside of the general fund budget council
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, the way that the state works, so and I worked on a bunch of education legislation, which is the only reason I'm chiming in here, but. There is a charter school reimbursement formula. So when a student moves from the public school system to the charter school system, there's a three-year step-down reimbursement. In their first year, I think it's 100%, second year, 80%, third year, 60%, and the year after that, 0%. So we send out over 8 million, I think, or around 8 million a year. to charter schools we only get back somewhere in the one to two million dollar range maybe 1.6 I'd have to look at the cherry sheet but it's um it's does not fully reimburse the cost of charter sending and charter sending is our by far the biggest assessment that is placed on the city by the state so that so this is just sorry this is just the quick summary of what revenue we we receive from the state on the bottom
[Zac Bears]: They're giving us back, uh,
[Zac Bears]: But 631 in the house ways and means. Right. So it's a total mess.
[Zac Bears]: I just put up the cherry shoot for a second. You might have to put that back. But this is the revenue side. And this is the estimate that Bob was using here. This 34, I'm guessing, if you're using the governor's budget estimate. And then these are the charges. So the T is about $5 million. Charter school sending is $8 plus million. Somehow the Taos formula has us paying a lot less, but also getting a lot less back. Sorry to interrupt your share. You may re-share your presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Councilor Kiley.
[Zac Bears]: You can also see that if you go to the Division of Local Services Municipal Finance dashboard,
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. There's a motion from Councilor to request the new growth. You want the amounts for the last 3 fiscal years.
[Zac Bears]: Great, we will. I have that motion we'll take all the motions at the end of the meeting. So we'll have a motion to last 3 years of projections and the actuals for new growth for the property tax. The new growth element.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Anyway, it's- Point being, we would like to not have this happen.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions at this point? Seeing none, I will say I think that is a, you know, we need to see the expense side of things, but that's almost $10 million more than last year, so we can always do better and do more, but that is a relatively significant number, and I think we should be aware of that. Our costs are probably growing faster, and I'm sure that's what the next slides are going to tell us.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have a general estimate of across the whole budget what the contractual increases are? Like a dollar amount?
[Zac Bears]: Right.
[Zac Bears]: I think that down the line, as we move through the process, that'll be kind of helpful for us to see and show. You know, I've already got it here at just with these three, the health insurance and given the pension and workers comp. So we have 9 million more revenue. Just those three items is 3.5 out, because that's a fixed cost increase on the benefit side. As we move through the department budgets, we'll be able to see however many millions the contractual obligations to our union and non-union employees cost. That's probably millions more. And then we're talking about that 9 million increase going away pretty quickly with the cost growth that we have without adding anything new or doing anything more than we're doing right now. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And along those lines, just essentially when we're in the Group Insurance Commission, the GIC, we are with almost every other city and town buying health insurance with them. The idea being that in a larger pool, you pay less. Is this a proposed rate increase or did the Group Insurance Commission actually vote this increase through?
[Zac Bears]: It's been voted. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Is the river's edge?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Dickinson. I'm going to go to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: There's a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to ask if there are any budget shortfalls for departments for FY24. we'll take that at the end. If you want to thank you, President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: The question I think was, Are there any budget freezes on the city side or any budgets that are expected to be frozen on the city side for fiscal 24? I believe Director Dickinson answered very clearly no. And you came up to add that there are positions that are currently funded through ARPA that may not be funded in the future, but that that's not going to affect this year's. There's no freezes related to that in the current budget.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I think on a few things here, just looking at the quarter three actuals and the quarter two actuals, I've been looking at all of them. The big six or seven budgets that I'll see, most of the budget is DPW highway, DPW water, sewer, fire, health insurance, pensions, police, and the school department. The Metropolitan Public Schools, that's basically the vast majority of the budget. It seems like we're pretty well on track there. So I don't really have that many questions, you know, I will say, you know, as I've noted, speaking with the chief of staff, and the chief of staff has noted here at the podium when we've had specific discussions, there's the elections department. Which needs might need an end of year transfer because of the cost of the recount, which was obviously on budgeted and unexpected. Is there anything else that you guys want to talk about from the current fiscal year 24? Any budgets or anything that you'd like to inform us of beyond the presentation that you've made?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I mean, again, just looking at this, the pension, you know, pension obligation is a huge one that's been paid out because that's paid as a lump sum is my understanding.
[Zac Bears]: For example, the bonds. That's to come in later. Yeah. So, but yeah, I mean, everything in here, if you, I just, I took your sheet and I put some percentages next to it for my own edification and the vast majority of our departments are under 75%, which you'd expect them to be around 75% or less, unless they have one of those big one-time payments at a strange time of year. It looks like we paid the trash contract. It looks like we paid the MWRA. So we've been, doing our job. I do have a couple questions. I will defer to my fellow councillors first. I saw Councilor Callaghan. Is there anybody else? But you didn't have it. Okay. Any questions from anyone else so far? Got it. Okay. So, um, just on the budget, you know, something that we've talked about, and I know we'll look at it in the future. Um. But I really appreciate having this top line number the 188.59Million available for the general fund budget. which again is almost exactly $9 million more than the fiscal 24 available for the general fund budget. You've already shown us that just from health insurance, workers' compensation and the pension rate increases, that over a third of that $9 million is going just to the cost of benefits, fixed cost growth of the benefits for the city employees and school employees. Contractual obligations will eat up another large chunk of that as well. I think something that will be helpful for us to know in the future, and I know we're getting them as we've been meeting so far in these preliminary meetings, but something I really appreciated hearing last week in our 1st budget meeting was that the. departments were asked to make requests based on what, you know, not that their requests were not tailored. And I think that that is a really great thing to hear, because we can hear from our departments what they think their need is for staff and programming in the fiscal year. I also understand that those requests came in. The total of those requests was some amount above 188.59 million, which I think is unsurprising considering just how much need every single department in the city has for additional staff and additional resources. I mean, we all see it every day in a myriad ways. Maybe a little bit more if you're in this building all the time, but I think we also see it out in the community all the time where a lot of needs are unmet due to underfunding. At some point, if If it's easier, I know you guys are super busy and we're pulling all this together for this meeting. And I really appreciate the work that you put in to do that forward and having that number of knowing what that initial budget request was from each of the departments, I think will be really helpful. I know that you guys in the department heads did a lot of work in the past few weeks to say, okay. We know this is our revenue estimate. We're going to go to the department and say, what do you think this year that we know you asked for this, but can you maybe not bring it in this year? We're also trying to bring on. 1 time funded positions from ARPA onto the general fund. So there's a lot of competing needs. But at some point, having that initial budget request and then seeing the hard work done by the administration and the department heads to kind of narrow that gap between what was requested and this revenue estimate would be helpful. And then I know just from some preliminary conversations that you're still working out the final amount. There's still some hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring the expense number down to equal the revenue number, which of course we have to do because we are required to have a balanced budget every year. Having those additional numbers will be helpful for us to understand, you know, what was requested that the departments need what we aren't able to do this year because of the fiscal restraint and restrictions put on us by what we're allowed to do as a community when it comes to raising revenue. And then we can certainly work. to explain and educate the public on why we couldn't do certain things this year, work together to understand what was prioritized and what wasn't prioritized based on trying to save staff positions and make sure our departments can continue to provide the service level that they currently provide to the community. So look forward to doing that. There's no form of emotion there. We've been communicating about it, so we'll continue to communicate about it. Is there any other comments or comments? Just a second, Councilor Scarpelli, I'll come to you in a second. I have Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, and we'll talk about the legislative clerk and finance budgets. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Back of the napkin of insurance, pensions, and workers' comp is like between 20 and 25% of the budget. It was last year's $41 million on a $180 million budget base, $179 million. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, just to clarify, the budgets we got last week and I believe the budgets we have tonight were those as requested by the department heads. I do know that the administration has made some adjustments. They're making adjustments from those initial requests to create the final budget.
[Zac Bears]: It's not a wish list. It's what they would like to see this year, but not necessarily the dream budget per se.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions or discussion on the presentation from our finance director? All right, let's go into the rest of this meeting, which is to discuss the three budgets. We can start, since you're already up at the podium, with the finance department. This was included in the packets online and in our print packets. Basically, I was asking, Four questions. I know I don't think any of these departments have narrative for tonight. If you want to come back and present your narrative at a later date, I know we'll be seeing a lot more of you over the next two months. Oh, you haven't. You haven't. Great. Even better. But the questions I was asking of each department, since this is a preliminary budget meeting, were, first, is there anything you want to share about your department this year, what you've done over the past year? What was your budget request? Are there any programs that you didn't request this year that you are looking to fund in the future, not necessarily in fiscal 25, but in future budgets? And then after the budget is presented at the end of May, let us know if you'd like to be invited back to talk more about your department. So those are the questions. I can go over them as well, but feel free to go right ahead. Director Dickinson. And just before you start, I'm looking at finance procurement at a total of $859,901,965. that is an increase of $136.30 and $0.65 from the previous fiscal year. And most of that is looking like if finance is absorbing the cost of the admin's program subscription.
[Zac Bears]: I know, you know, Courtney and Adam and we sat down with, uh, to talk about the legislative budget. And I think it was one of the toughest conversations we had, because we asked for nothing to change at all. So seriously, Courtney was great.
[Zac Bears]: When is FY23 coming out? I think I'm the only person who's waiting for the debut date.
[Zac Bears]: And that is the other post-employment benefits? Yes. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you very much. Any questions for the director about the finance department's proposed budget for fiscal 2025? I've got two questions for you. One, in terms of the RFPs, you said nine months, hopefully, to get some RFPs back on the financial software.
[Zac Bears]: Sandisfield. Sandisfield.
[Zac Bears]: Florida.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Well, I know that's been a priority of this council, and I do hope that, you know, the solution that we come to enables everyone to do their job more efficiently and not have the reconciliation and the data cross between multiple systems that we're dealing with right now, because I know that would be a boon to everybody. in terms of just making things easier, making things more timely, making it maybe easier. I know, you know, basically I feel like we invite you here, we ask you to do a bunch of work every time you come. So, you know, maybe this new system will make that a little bit less burdensome.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And it's noticed. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: And I just had one last question, which is just on the clear outside of things. You know, I know we ran into some issues last year where some of the actuals uploaded in the clear of were not the right actuals. And so, um, you know, just wanted to fly that again, because I think it is probably the place that most people look to see what's going on with the city's finances. Um, and something I've also noticed some other communities and again. Just going back to my asking you to do more work piece of this whole thing. Um. Some communities will update the budget after approval to reflect any amendments or adjustments to the budget process. I think we generally have been keeping up just the proposed version, or I'm not 100% sure about that, but that it's staying as the proposed budget versus the approved budget that people say. Where can I find the approved budget? And it's, you know, well, this is pretty close, but it's not it's not 100%. So those are just some things about the clear side of things that feedback we hear from residents that might be helpful to for just for residents to see it. And then, you know, we can put on, you can. Maybe you can add in this budget was approved June whatever by the council. These were the adjustments and this is the final approved amount. And then we can point people to say, that's the approved amount. I'm not sure how any of that works on the back end, but that's some of the feedback that we hear from residents who are trying to learn more about the budget.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. And even just, I'm just in here right now, there's like a FY20 is presented strangely in the general fund summary and section three.
[Zac Bears]: I think the great thing is that with the most of this shell built, now it's, you know, you can focus even more on the details of improving it, which I think is great. Any more questions for the finance director? Seeing none. Thank you, Bob.
[Zac Bears]: The other two budgets that we have here are the clerk's office and the legislative department. For the clerk, we'll go to the clerk. Mr. Clerk.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Any questions for the clerk on the clerk's budget?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think that's a huge change. I'll also shout out the, uh, the marriage. That's another change, right? Yeah. Moving to online software, which is great. So, um, always good to hear and fingers crossed. We'll be at full staff in the clerk's office in a few weeks. That would be great for the first time in a while.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and so that'll be great. All right, I see no questions for the clerk. If there's anything else you want to share about plans for the future, you're welcome to, and we have you here at our mercy at all times, so we can ask you those questions whenever we want.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The last budget we have is the, and I'll just read it out really quickly. The total budget proposed for the clerk's office is $404,133.86. That is an increase of $19,977.86 from fiscal 24. And essentially all of that increases in the raises for the staff, the contractual raises for the staff in that department. And it looks like, you were able to find about $1,800 worth of some efficiencies on the ordinary expense side. It's looking like some, where are we? Oh yeah, subscriptions, subscriptions, publications, 2,500.
[Zac Bears]: I think you upped office equipment by about 1,000 there, so I can see it. Oh, sorry, office equipment, my apologies, yes, 500 and 200, yep.
[Zac Bears]: Last budget is the legislative budget, totaling 312,689. I'm going to triple check, but I believe that that is identical to our proposed legislative budget for fiscal 24, which it is. Yep. And there was no change. There's also no change from the prior year there. We are getting into one of these conundrums where the longer you don't change something, the more you have to change it. So I will note that for the future, although I am certainly not proposing anything. No change proposed. I am going to ask our finance department for one shift, if possible, if we could shift $1800 from line item 5240, which is our legislative repair and maintenance line item to 5202 for the videographer. Our videographer has made a request to be paid closer to market rates and we would like to retain his services. So that's our 1 request. There's no shift within the node. No amount. The amount would stay the same. Uh, and given the actuals of legislative repair and maintenance, we believe that that is a. You know, we're very much under on that software.
[Zac Bears]: 5240 is our line item for civic clerk software, meeting code software, essentially our legislative softwares for codification and for The now running of our agendas and uploading of minutes and the agenda and meeting minutes portal. So we haven't had a full year expenditure there yet. So we're waiting to see what that will look like. We used to fund the, I'm going to forget the name of it. IQM2 software package that the council used to have. It's similar to what Somerville used to use for their legislative maintenance, but that was where we were able to stream from room 207 before the pandemic, before we moved to Zoom. President Morell and I were reviewing the budget and found that we were still paying for that software even though we were not using it. And so we decided to stop doing that and to look at this new civic clerk software which has been actually was cheap quoted cheaper and has been fun serving more of the functions that we needed it to serve than the prior software package and the professional technical services other 5310 that is our funding for the zoning project. So we split that with the Planning Development Sustainability Office. That's our chunk of it for next year. We had the same amount this year, which was committed in both of the, this year and next year are both committed through the procurement process to that contract. Any further questions about the legislative budget? Again, there's no proposed change. Seeing none, any further discussion? I saw some general nods. Are we cool with moving that money around in the legislative budget? I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: That would be great. I have a motion of Councilor Scarpelli to request that we shift 1800 from line item ending 5240 to the line item ending 5202. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Now I will go to the Chief of Staff. Sorry about that, Madam Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, got it. Thank you, and yeah, we can talk that through. So we have motions from, I think we have three motions, and they are, yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seeing a yes on that, we'll get that emailed out to everybody. I think the motions are to request the three years of new growth numbers, the projections and the actuals. We have the one on the, that we just did on moving the money around. What was the third one? Update. Yes, budget shortfalls 2024, if any. Great. On those motions. Uh, all by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Leming. Are we comfortable taking it? I think we just vote on them all at once. Sure. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. Any further discussion for this meeting before the, sorry, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Any further discussion before the next meeting? Vice President Collins?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice-President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, to adjourn, and just a reminder to everybody on Zoom or on TV that there is a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting starting sometime soon after this meeting. There will be a new Zoom, but it should still be on the same channel on cable. Any further discussion seen? None. On the motion of Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, to adjourn.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Yes. 60.1 absent. The motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. See everyone in a few minutes for resident services.
[Zac Bears]: City Council, Committee of the Whole, April 17, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli is absent due to illness, but said he would be paying attention.
[Zac Bears]: present six present one absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee. The whole at six p.m. in the City Council Chamber, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts and via Zoom. The action and discussion item for today is 24-045 Annual Budget Process for Fiscal 25 Preliminary Budget Meeting. And we, I'll just go over the calendar again for the budget process. We are following the soon to be finalized budget ordinance which is eligible for third reading on April 30th but we have agreed to implement it already which is great and that started with individual budget recommendations submitted by councillors to the council by March 1st. The council submitted a collective budget recommendation to the mayor by March 22nd And now we are in the April 15th to May 15th, 2024, where we are holding preliminary budget meetings with department heads. Tonight we have the Council on Aging, Medford Community Media, and our Veterans Services Department. And this is our first ever preliminary budget meeting under the new budget ordinance, so I'm excited for it. I hope everyone's excited as I am. But I think really just to go into that for a minute, I again want to thank the administration for this new process that we're working under. The idea of these meetings is to hear from departments what they've requested before we get the budget so we can have some discussion, some input, hear what departments are thinking and wanting, and then obviously understanding what our fiscal limits are with what we're actually able to fund at the end of the process. We'll get the budget. see what the differences are, be able to come back and invite departments back if they need to come back. The mayor can invite, the council can invite after the budget is submitted, so that would be in June. If what you present here today is what ends up in the budget proposal in June, then I'm guessing we're probably good to go and we'll have one meeting. Of course, if you want to come back, or if the mayor wants you to come back, or we do just for fun, maybe we'll invite you. But that's really the scope of the meeting tonight. And we also received, thank you, Madam Chief of Staff for the budget to actuals up through quarter two. and some other materials. And then next Tuesday, we'll be meeting with the finance director talking about the legislative clerk and finance department budgets. And we will also be talking about a general top line presentation of the city budget for fiscal 25, which I think will be Good, good to get going on sooner than later. We all have been talking about for over a year now. And really, since I've been on the council, the difficult type budgets that we've had this year, we have the fiscal cliff of the federal funding from ARPA and ESSER that are no longer going to be available to the city. It is going to be an important budget season, and I'm glad that we are moving ahead with the process as we are. So with that, I will go to the Chief of Staff, if you want to say anything up front, since this is just our first meeting, if there's anything else you want to add, and then we can go through in order. We'll go with Council on Aging, and then Medford Community Media, and then Veterans Services. And I'll ask a few questions, and then Councilors will be able to ask some questions as well. we're going to have a meeting with the city council after a presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Any questions at this time, or do we want to hear from the departments?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments, questions by the council before we move to our first department? Seeing none, we will go to the Council on Aging, Director Kelly, and, you know, basically just some standard questions. You've done this before, so you get to model it for everybody. We'd love to hear just what was your budget request for the year, and then kind of anything you want to share narrative-wise about your year as a department. And then I'll ask a couple more follow-up questions, and then we can go to questions from the Council. So, welcome.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't seen the narrative yet. Oh, you haven't? I do apologize. No, that's if you want to read us through it, maybe an advanced copy. This is our first one, so now we have some comments. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, yeah, if you want, or even a high-level summary.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much. My only other questions are, were there any other programs that you didn't request this year that you might request in the future or any kind of future investments you're hoping to see from the city and the center?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. And just my only other question, and this is just for me looking at the, I know you have your position and the office manager position and the social worker position part-time in the budget. I do see there's a community outreach coordinator on the city website. Is that a grant funded position?
[Zac Bears]: State funded position, great.
[Zac Bears]: And that is the yes. Sorry about that. My bad. Miss that one building maintenance as well. And my only other note, it just there's an office manager title on the city website, but then it says administrative clerk in the city budget. And I was just wondering if there was a if there's a reason for that, or is that just technical?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it might be something we look at in the classification. Absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Great. Thank you so much. Those are my questions. Any questions or comments from members of the council?
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Well, I've seen no other hands raised. I think I'll try to summarize, but basically it looks like about an $8,000 increase from fiscal 24 to fiscal 25, and it's all in your fixed costs of the union contract and some equipment costs that went up.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. and all the other amazing things that you're doing as well, but we'll just boil it down to the brass tacks for the budget meeting. Yeah, so at this point, thank you so much for the presentation. We love all the work you do. Obviously, feel free to engage us any time of year in any way that we can be helpful. If there's ever anyone we want to recognize, if you want to pass along all the 100th birthdays for us to put on for commemorative resolutions, we're happy to do that. Thank you. We will await to see the budget presentation and I'm guessing that if it's 275, 226, 79, then we're going to be all set and ready to we won't have to have you have you back to do another run through the through the machine. So we're hoping for that. And thank you so much for everything that you guys do.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right. All right. One down, two to go. We will go next to our Medford Community Media, Kevin Harrington, to present his budget for fiscal 25, budget request for fiscal 25. And Kevin, just if you wanna start off with what your request was, maybe how that differed from last year, and share a little bit of what, like Pam did, what your department's up to, what you're hoping to add, and see you over the next year.
[Zac Bears]: Shane, that's what we call him.
[Zac Bears]: I will ask no questions about SAT words. But I do the one other kind of standard question, just as you kind of went into it a little bit, is there anything not requested this year and this year's budget request that you're probably looking for in the future? It sounded like maybe in the future, some capital related stuff around video switcher, but anything on staff side, personal side that you're looking towards that you knew we weren't going to go for this year?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Well, thank you. You know, I just want to say personally, thank you. You're one of the departments we work with the most as you're broadcasting our meetings. And, you know, Sarah's been great. And we miss Kat and we miss you filling in in the interim. You know, but we, you know, and I've been really grateful to work with you on this ARPA project that we are. We're crossing the finish line on after floods and staff shortages and a variety of other natural and artificial disasters. So it's going to be great, I think, just to talk about the project really quickly. We're going to have a significantly improved audio quality for folks in this space and online. I think especially for online, I believe we're going to have the ability to change levels of microphones to adjust for different volumes of speech, which we currently can't do. And sometimes we go from a pretty quiet talk to a pretty loud talk. And the last thing you want is the mic all the way up for someone speaking quietly and someone chimes in loudly and we blow out everyone's TV speakers back at home. So I think that's going to be great. And we're going to have a little bit better meeting management as well. And maybe a few fewer taped cables on the floor, which I think will make us all feel better. So that's been really a great project to work on. Really excited for MCM, hoping to get classes back and, you know, It's just a great, great stuff that you're doing. So hopefully we can expand it a bit more in the future. And I will go to Councilor Callaghan, Councilor Tseng, Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins. Appreciate that, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Should we talk about a certain admittance to a certain school of a certain sweatshirt?
[Zac Bears]: And I would just throw out two things on that. I believe the administration has a remote participation policy of some kind. We have also, so that would be for boards and commissions, and I don't know what the school committee's policy is. We have in our rules said that we will permanently maintain virtual access. The only thing that the change in state law would change would be the presence of Councilors. So virtually present Councilors would not count towards quorum if that law were to expire, but they could participate remotely and we would still, we've put it into our rules to maintain the virtual access as part of council business going forward. I don't wanna speak to the intent of the administration's policy, but when I said, hey, Steve, link to the records, he said, hey, we already linked to the policy. So I'm guessing they might be in the same ballpark of some kind, but I also know that there's just been some dispute in the legislature about the specifics of making it permanent and how that applies to towns and communities. I mean, I think it applies here in Medford, quite frankly, you know, it's another, I think it's a great value. I think the MMA and some other cities and town governments have said it was an unfunded mandate. We don't have the technology and resources to, we don't have the money to pay for the technology resources and staff to maintain the system. So if the state requires it is the state going to pitch in some funds and I think there's been disputes as to what that would look like and who would be eligible, and if the state is going to create some sort of fund that communities can apply for grants from or not. So I'm hoping that. I'm hoping they work that all out. But for us, I think we should be good for the council. Although we have had some requests to go back to meeting in the smaller committee rooms and maybe the more collegial atmosphere that that enshrines. So that may be something to discuss as well. not to steal any, for some reason I read too much. I will go to Vice President, unless you're done Council, do you have more questions? No, I'm good. All right, cool, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I think we can send those questions. We maybe have a motion to ask those questions of the finance department. Given what you looked up, you said it was 236 from Comcast.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and it sounds like Verizon didn't reply, but Comcast did.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I would just like to like, you know, my understanding is that, Comcast, there's more Comcast subscribers than Verizon subscribers. So it's based on the total charge, I'd guess. The Verizon is probably less than the Comcast. And the other thing, and maybe it's just useful to put out budget wide all the time, because sometimes even I get a little mixed up with it. I think there is one thing that kind of, There's a bunch of money that is technically going to pay for benefits for employees of MCM. That's not in the MCM budget line item, right? So health insurance, pensions, other benefits, those are in the health insurance line item. So, you know, paying for the full cost of our staff, it actually doesn't all appear in the line item for the departmental budget for that department. So sometimes it's like, you know, I mean, you can look at it a lot of different ways, but, and I think it's probably for, readability purpose is better than it's in its own thing, in its own budget line that it's split up across the entire city and with individual lines and then having to figure out how much is health insurance for X, Y, Z person. But that is something where there could be funds, like say there was a restricted, if PEG funds are restricted, we can ask the question, they may be going to benefits for you that are technically not in your line item budget, but that are being, that you're entitled to. Um, is there a motion to request the peg fees paid to the city by Comcast and Verizon? On the motion of Vice President Collins, do you want to amend it? Or second it? Second it. On the motion, Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan to request from the Finance Department the peg fees paid by Comcast and Verizon. When you're ready, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes and we are there any more questions members of the council? We do have a member of the public's hand raised on zoom. Seeing no questions by the Council, I will recognize Eunice on Zoom if you have a question about the Medford Community Media Budget.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eunice. Um, I got the three questions down. If you have them down, I will just say on the YouTube, we're still working on it. We ran into a bit of a logistical thing where you can only attach a one YouTube account to one zoom account. So then we kind of had the discussion, do we have to make a separate YouTube account for every, um, for every meeting of the city. And that became kind of, I think, a sticking point of, do we want to do that? And if people have to go look for 20 different Zoom accounts or YouTube accounts, does that really make it accessible? So that's my understanding where we left and are still talking through it, but that's the only piece of this that I have any answer to. So I'll go to you, Kevin.
[Zac Bears]: once we went into the hybrid mode, there were play counts at some point. I think it was, and maybe it's changed since then, and maybe there's a way to set, I don't know anything about the settings or anything, but I think it was only showing play counts for full playthroughs. So you'd have to have watched zero to three hours, 40 minutes, or at least fast forward to the end and then let it finish. So it would show like a play count of like three for every meeting. And obviously I've, you know, One person probably looked at it more than three times, but I think that may have been why Patrick shut it off was it was, you know, people are like, well, only three people watch this meeting. And it's like, well, that's just because nobody watched it to the end. It's like when you're on iTunes and it doesn't count if you played the song, if you skip it, like, even if you want listen to the first two hours, two minutes and 30 seconds, the last 15 seconds. So.
[Zac Bears]: That's a COVID haze memory, so I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.
[Zac Bears]: We need money to do things. It's an answer we hear a lot. Thank you, Kevin. Eunice, I see your hand still up, so I will unmute you if you just have any further comments you want to make or if you want to ask any follow-ups.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Thank you, Kevin. And if I'm guessing that we'll do the bottom line summary again, you said 20442737, which is about a 3000 dollar increase from prior year. And that's just essentially fixed cost increases and some, some materials and staff and. I'm guessing that if that's what ends up in the final budget, that we won't need to see you back here again, unless you want to, feel free to ask. We're happy to hire you from here again.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: All right, and we are going to now our last budget of the night. We are going to veteran services. And we're going to Director Veronica Shaw, welcome for your first meeting with us. We're excited to have you here. It's a first for you and it's a first for us in the preliminary budget meeting. And as you can see, that is our current workaround system for our podium microphone. So I'm really excited for that to get fixed in the next few months.
[Zac Bears]: And if you could send, if they will, or may, you know, just let me know. And if you could send the request sheet to the budget request, like the spreadsheet, because folks are coming up with it. If you could send that and just say they will have a narrative, won't have a narrative, and then perfect. I think that's why we have this first meeting.
[Zac Bears]: And the request is more just to say that, traditionally, these have been opportunities for departments to share. the wonderful things they're doing and we don't want to not have that opportunity so if folks haven't had aren't at the stage where they have the narrative yet you know we would be happy to invite them back after the budget proposal to come back and we can have the supplemental conversation and if you want to do that more than welcome to have you to do that um and uh and just for me to just have the heads up to know who who does and doesn't and we can keep track of if we want to have people back because that is something i think that's really a nice thing and sometimes otherwise kind of more boring, technical, detailed, and sometimes difficult budget conversations to at least have the public forum to share all the great work that the administration team is doing.
[Zac Bears]: Cool. Thank you. All right. Welcome, director. It's great to have you. And, you know, we'll just start out with, you know, your budget requests, anything you want to share about the department this year that you've done this year or anything you're planning about the future year. It doesn't have to be a full narrative or anything, but, you know, just really anything. especially as you've started, and just really anything you wanna share about what you do. We've heard from some of your predecessors. We know the amazing work and how much money has been brought in to support veterans and their families in our community and how important and valuable that is. So, well, I have, I shouldn't speak for Councilor Callahan, Councilor Levin, and Councilor Lazzaro, because this is their first budget cycle. But yeah, just take it away. We'd love to hear your budget request, what's changing, and then anything you'd like to say about what you do.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And do you have the total number there, just so we can write it down?
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you so much. So what's going on in Veterans Services? How's it been the first few months?
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you so much. Much appreciated. Really up to you. I mean, well, unless the council requests it, up to you and the administration if you wanna come back later and share even more. But we'd love to have you and we really appreciate the work that you do. So I will go to Councilor Leming, Vice President Collins and Councilor Callahan in that order. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, and then Councilor Zargarpur.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. We'll go to Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Councilor Lazzaro on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Wonderful. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Any further comments or questions by members of the council at this time? Councilor Tseng.
[Zac Bears]: We've got some meeting recordings.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, thank you so much. Just going to do the same thing as I've done for every other department so far. The request is about a little over 7000 more than the previous year's budget, just addressing fixed cost growth. There's no new major programs, no new staff. So, it's essentially a slightly slightly above a level funded budget. Certainly what I think we can all call a level service budget, you'll be able to keep doing next year what you're doing this year. And that, at the very least, is our baseline, especially during difficult budget years. So I'm really glad to hear that that's going to happen for veteran services, and as well our Medford Community and our Council on Aging. So that is great. If there is nothing else, so thank you very much for joining us, and we will go to the Chief of Staff.
[Zac Bears]: Great But do you know, just my only housekeeping on this, do you know when Director Dickinson will be able to get the quarter three materials?
[Zac Bears]: Great. And anything you have, I understand some of it may not be ready yet, but maybe the legislative clerk and finance, the departmental budgets, if we can have those sheets, we can put them in. the packets for everybody for before next Tuesday's meeting. Yep. Great. Understood. Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Awesome. And we will see you Tuesday, which is just so everyone knows is a reschedule from it's not administration finance of the committee of the whole 6 p.m. Big fun presentation from our leadership team. And we will also hear the legislative clerk and finance department budgets at that meeting. And maybe Vice President Collins will buy us some food. I'm just making sure we traditionally have food at budget meetings.
[Zac Bears]: All right, okay. Well, that's we've gone too far. Councilor Callaghan.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Callaghan to adjourn. Second. By Councilor Leming. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Eighth regular meeting, Medford City Council, April 16th, 2024. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. 7 present none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. Records, the records of the meeting of April 2nd, 2024 were passed to Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng, how did you find the records?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the records, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: We're in the middle of a roll call, so that's a no. That's a no, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, it's the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. Reports of committees. 24-074, Public Health and Community Safety Committee, April 9th, 2024. Councilor Lazzaro is the chair of that committee. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of council's order approve the committee report seconded by. Seconded by Vice-President Collins. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 affirmative. None. The negative motion passes in the report is approved 24-033 planning and permitting committee April 10 2024 committee report offered by Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, please present the report.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have affirmative, non-negative. The motion passes. 24-075, offered by Councilor SCARPELLI. Councilor COLLINS. motion to suspend the rules to take 24082 out of order present bears on the motion to suspend the rules to take paper 24-082 by Councilor Khan, seconded by Councilor Tseng, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have any further item than the negative? Motion passes. Councilor COLLINS, if you would take the chair for this item.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to thank a resident, Paul McCaffrey, for bringing this to my attention. And I know we have a lot of folks in our community and around the state and the country who have benefited from animal therapy in many ways. I have seen these animals and actions in school settings, college settings after traumatic incidents, helping families deal with grief and loss, and also just everyday help that these animals can provide to people. And they also happen to be lovely. We have Lily here in attendance, and we got a little card of Lily with a few statistics. I particularly like that one of Lily's favorite activities is couch surfing. I think that's just great. So I just wanted to thank Paul for bringing this up. And I know I think the mayor is going to issue a proclamation as well, but it's something good that we can all celebrate. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 24-075 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution to discuss concerns dealing with the Bedford Water Department. to be resolved by the benefit City Council discuss concerns with the Medford Water Department. We did receive two communications from the administration and I'll go over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: And I also have the message here. And I do want to note that. We did have some of this discussion last budget season. We voted down the retained earnings to make sure that that funding was going to address infrastructure needs. That was the 1st time in a long time that that had happened. But we do have this response from. Commissioner McGivern. It's dated April 11th. As you know, Dan Stone King, our former water superintendent, decided to leave the city of Medford for what he felt was a better opportunity. Dan was a valuable member of the DPW leadership team and contributed significant improvements to the water and sewer division. Dan's presentation of the state of the city's water system did not provide you with information on what steps and plans that the DPW with the support of the mayor have already taken to address our aging water system. His letter unfortunately only focused on issues he felt were not getting enough attention. It is worth balancing the minimal information he provided with a summary of actions that have taken place since I've been appointed leader of the DPW and before as city engineer. It is important to highlight that the City of Medford purchases water from the MWRA and was responsible for distributing it to the ratepayers through a system of pipes, valves and meters. As part of this distribution, we regularly provide water quality testing to demonstrate the safety of our distribution system. The latest published information on Medford's water quality can be found at the MWRA website linked below. This site is updated regularly with our testing information and ratepayers also receive a consumer confidence report from the MWRA in June that provides greater detail. The web address is www.mwra.com, annual, water report, 2022 results, pdf, medford.pdf. The city of Medford experienced a huge surge of roadway building and building development in the early part of the 20th century, so many of our water distribution pipes installed at that time were nearing the expected lifetime age of 75 to 100 years, with some lasting 120 years. Knowing this fact, we completed an evaluation of our utility assets in 2020 when I was city engineer. This study included, among other things, identifying the age, material, and quantity of our water distribution pipes based on the city's records. This allowed the DPW to understand the needs of our water system, and helped us identify steps to prepare for an increase in water main replacements throughout the city. When I became commissioner, we had recently suffered the loss of our longtime water superintendent, Dave Proctor, and I was tasked with finding a new person who could help us improve our water operations, assess our capital needs, and lead new initiatives to prepare for increasing our capacity to replace our aging water mains. Mr. Stone King helped the DPW prepare a strategy that started in the 2024 budget. The goal of the strategy is to increase in-house and contracted water main relay capacity and align the development of the DPW capital improvement project to the needs of the system. We met with Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn in April of 2023 to discuss the strategy and steps we believe needed to be addressed in the FY24 budget. This resulted in the mayor beginning to formulate a communication plan, which is under development, as well as additions to the water and sewer operating budget. These additions included a water supervisor position with an additional water quality coordinator and a deputy commissioner to oversee the operations of DPW. The water supervisor proposition is in front of you tonight to increase the compensation scale as it has been a significant challenge to attract a qualified candidate at the current scale. We also included a plan to engage a consultant to help us develop a long-term rate study and indirect cost study. We are currently working on these studies with Weston and Sampson. These studies are critical to inform important decisions the City of Medford will need to make in the coming years. The rate study will assess the needs of the system, contribute to the development of our capital project list, and identify rate and funding scenarios for a 10-year period. This information is critical to the long-term health and performance of our water distribution system. Both the utility asset evaluation as well as the long-term rate study are actions that the city had not done before, which presents its own unique challenge. We've also pursued initiatives that support these efforts, such as a hydraulic modeling of our entire system and developing a unidirectional regular flushing program. The hydraulic modeling will help identify the cause of pressure or flow issues within the system, so those issues can be incorporated into capital projects. There are also new initiatives related to our service lines, which are in response to new regulations that will go into effect later this year. One of these initiatives is a lead service ordinance, which you'll be hearing more about shortly. It's worth noting that this letter only summarizes the work taking place for us to prepare us for replacing our aging water infrastructure. We also have aging pavement infrastructure, which must be coordinated with the water infrastructure work. As you know, these infrastructure assets are not the only ones that need more attention in Medford. since proper asset management is costly over many years, it is critically important that we work together to evaluate, prepare, and execute projects as we march towards having systems and funding in place for long-term infrastructure performance. In closing, we certainly have a lot of work to do with our water system, but we are taking the proper steps to plan for increasing the length of water main we replace each year and increasing the water quality. This will take time, and effective partnerships between the mayor, city council, and DPW will be critical. That is Mr. McGivern's letter, and I will note that Mr. McGivern did answer many questions on this in the last budget, including the scope of the problem being $500 million to $1 billion long-term problem. So that was discussed a year ago in the budget season. I also met with Mr. Stone King and Mr. McGivern around the proposed lead service ordinance last year, and we had discussions along the lines, basically, of what Mr. McGivern just put out in this report. And I was also asking many of the same questions that Mr. McGivern was asking here, that Mr. Stoneking was asking in his letter of the mayor, which is, when are we going to know the scope and scale of this? And they said, basically, we need the long term rate study in place now that we have looked at the, we know what our assets are. There wasn't even an asset inventory in 2020. That exists now. we now we need the long term rate study to go back and say, this is what it's going to cost in the long term to rate payers to fix the system, which I think both in the last budget season and in that meeting that I had, they referred to as one of the three oldest systems in the state. So that is where we are at. And that is the letter from Mr. McGiven. If I can, Mr. President. Councilor Scarpelli, and then Councilor Callahan, and then Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We also had this from the director of communications. Steve Smurdy. Hello, Councilors. I want to provide some additional information regarding the city's ARPA allocations for water and sewer projects. Since the fall of 2021, the city has invested over 4 million in 13 projects that address critical water infrastructure needs. Among those projects are sewer system lining, sealing and testing, DPW water meter system replacement project, lead service line replacement rebate program, infiltration and inflow infiltration and inflow control plan, rights upon dam maintenance, Winthrop Street water main replacement. In addition to strengthening our water sewer system, the mayor has been working with City Engineer Wartella and DPW Commissioner McGibbon to address the over 100 million backlog in street repairs due to neglect over the past few decades by identifying projects that were close to beginning construction. The administration was able to deploy ARPA funding across multiple road infrastructure projects including patchwork on 34 streets identified in the pavement assessment, intersection improvements at Spring Street and Central Avenue, Pinker Street Roadway and utility construction. The mayor is also hoping to allocate $1 million in ARPA funding to continue the repair work of the city's sidewalks, as well as additional tree stump removals in 2024. You can read more about the work already done on sidewalks and stumps on the city website, and you can view a full list of projects, as well as a dive deeper into project descriptions by visiting the city website medfordma.org. slash department slash finance slash ARPA. Councilor Kelly.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to clarify one thing. The common practice, as far as I was aware, was that funds that were called retained earnings, which were surplus funds gathered by rate payers in the enterprise fund that funds water and sewer, that those funds were returned to rate payers to keep rates low. So it wasn't that they were in the general fund. It's that the council, the mayor requested, the mayor, excuse me, thank you. Thank you, please. I don't want to get into this again tonight. Thank you very much. The council, many mayors and many councils, mayors recommended, water and sewer commissions recommended, and councils voted to return retained earnings to taxpayers on the orders of hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars every year. And those are funds that could have gone to maintenance of the system. Vice President, that's just the facts, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you. Please don't shout from the crowd. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: No, you shouldn't be shouting from the crowd. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the Council? Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng any further comments from members of the council. Seeing none of their emotion on the floor. Vice President Collins, Councilor Scarpelli. Motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins. Is there any public participation on the matter? I see one hand on Zoom and one person in the chamber. We'll go to the chamber first. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Maureen on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Maureen.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen.
[Zac Bears]: If you email it to me, I can probably put it up.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I can't speak to the filters. The MWRA tests the water. They determine that it's safe.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment? Mr. Castagnetti, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Between 75 and 120 are many of the water pipes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Collins, to receive and place on file. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I'm in affirmative, none in the negative, motion passes. President Bears? 24-076 offered by Councilor Sperpelli. President Bears? Yes, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Sure, public participation on the motion of Vice President Collins to take public participation, seconded by? Councilor Saing, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 74. Another negative motion passes public participation. We received two public comment emails and I'm also vice president Collins. If you have someone who'd like to speak in public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Welcome.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. If I can, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: And just for folks watching and to note once again what Judge Kavanaugh was saying, we did dedicate and commemorate our last meeting in honor of Jack McGlynn and his service in the Ghost Army, which as folks can look up online, was made up of a few thousand folks who looked like 50,000 and made the German Nazi armies. think that there were mass mobilizations in one place or the other, but they had tanks, blow up tanks, and there was a signal core sending false radio transmissions. It's impressive. And I'll just reiterate my favorite anecdote from that was when Mayor Mike McGlynn, Jack McGlynn's son, got a call from a newspaper after some documents had been declassified in the 1990s. And he called his dad and he said, dad, what's this ghost army that they called about? The newspaper's calling, he said, who called you about that? He wanted to call the Pentagon and make sure that there hadn't been a leak of classified information. He hadn't told his own son 50 years later. And I think that speaks to the humility of that role. And they were honored with the, excuse me, they were honored with the Congressional Gold Medal, that entire unit, all the units. Public participation, is there anyone else who would like to participate for public participation in the chambers? Just in general, there is, of course, participation on the additional items on the agenda. Seeing none of the chambers, we do have one on Zoom. I see a hand, Bill Giglio. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know why, but I do know that under the city's rules, any reopenings within five years of a repaving require curb-to-curb repaving. So if you want to email me, let me know where that's being temporarily patched. I can let you know when their plans are to do a full curb-to-curb repaving, because that is the city rule on that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I know that members of the committee did speak to the chief after, you know, one of the public participation rules, the most recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling is that we cannot prevent anyone from, we cannot regulate the content of any public participation. So people are able to say whatever they think, other than they can't be swearing or, you know, being vulgar. But other than that, We can't regulate the content of what anyone's saying, so while I understand the frustration when public comments may not be what folks want to hear, and I understand the Chief's frustration at public comments that he did not want to hear, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that people can say what they want to say, and the only rules that we can set are around how long folks have to speak and when they can speak.
[Zac Bears]: Any further public participation before we resume the agenda? We did have two public comment emails. Is there a motion on the public comment emails to enter them into the record?
[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Collins to enter public comment emails into the record, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I mean from another negative. Those emails will be included as part of the official record of the meeting. 24-076 be resolved by the city council that we requested the city administration provide a full report involving the use of taxpayer dollars being used to fund lawsuit settlements and investigations with city of Medford, active and past employees. Be it further resolved that the city council moved to executive session if needed to discuss sensitive funding information. Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I'm going to go to Vice President Collins, but first I just want to say a couple things. Last year the budget fiscal 24 budget new growth was 2.5 million. And we did receive in the budget, we have meetings on the three departments tomorrow in committee of the whole, we did receive a quarter one quarter two budget to actuals document. from the administration. The law department spending as of December 31st was $172,000 out of a budget of $552,000. So only families spent 31% of their budget, 50% of the way through the year. Vice President Collins. Thank you, President Bears. I appreciate that.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins Council. Go ahead.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Any comments from members of the public? Seeing none, is there a motion? Oh, sure. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I will just note that we've had many of these discussions the last two before the last two meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the topic of the lawsuit settlements and investigations?
[Zac Bears]: So motion to refer the paper to the mayor, requesting answers to the questions and an executive session, please.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callahan. We'll go to public participation. Mr. Orlando, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We have a question from our hand raised on Zoom. Maureen, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I will just note that, you know, for example, we may be managing Zoom. I often take notes and bring up reference documents. Councilor Scarpelli brings up things on his phone, researches things on his phone. They're often tools to enhance our participation in the meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. It's certainly not. Any further comment on this paper. Seeing none on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the mayor requesting answers to the questions and an executive session seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, more than negative. The motion passes. 24-077 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Resolution to discuss. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion to join papers 24-077 and 24-081 by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, seven in the affirmative. None of the negative emotion passes 24-07. Can I read them both? Sure, sure. Thank you. 24-077 by Councilor Scarpelli be resolved that the City Council discussed the possible harmful materials being stored on the MBTA commuter railway that abuts residential homes, most notably the creosote railroad ties and 24-081. Council President provided verbal update on efforts by Council leadership, the mayor, city staff, representative Garmelie and local residents to remove creosote Soak Railroad ties that are an environmental and health hazard along the MBTA lower line, be it further resolved that the council request immediate action by the MBTA to remove these ties from residential areas and forward a copy of this resolution by email to our state delegation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli I appreciate that I can just give a brief update. There's been an issue ongoing for over two months now, especially behind Tyler app but along the lower line commuter rail where railroad ties soaked increase so which is a pretty toxic flammable material have been being placed within 50 feet of homes, you know, right in a residential neighborhood, some of them nearby to a daycare in February. And this is part of a program to replace the rail lines. You know, they have to do it for safety purposes, but. In February, there was the first time these were placed there and I was just able to successfully work with Director Blake and some other folks to get the MBTA to move the ties up the line into Winchester, where they're in near the forest, you know in the DCR forest area rather than right abutting residential homes. And then a couple weeks ago, maybe five times as many ties came and replaced right on Tyler Avenue along the MBTA railroad line. The mayor has made direct requests director Blake from traffic and transportation has made requests. We've been working with director with representative Garber Lee. Residents have been reaching out, residents have engaged the Mass Department of Environmental Protection, and there's probably a couple hundred, 200 email chain at this point, going back and forth between dozens of people trying to get the MBTA to do this. And the MBTA has basically said, no, we have to replace the ties, prove that this is toxic. So it has been a frustrating. Again, just last week, we were out trying to get them to do something, been talking to Representative Garbally, and he's been basically getting a stonewall as well. So we are continuing to try. The MBTA has invoked a couple of things. They basically said, if you want to prove it's toxic, call the EPA. And then they've also said, we'll bring in the Federal Railroad Administration if we have to bring in the federal, because it's federal rails, we have to replace the rails. So they are not responding in the way that you would hope of a partner in government on this issue, but we have had a lot of people working on this, and I'll continue to keep working on it as best as I can. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm certainly amenable to the amendment and did request that from the MBTA and they did not provide the document. So that's an amendment from Councilor Tseng to request the materials Could you, the safety data sheet? Yeah, that's right.
[Zac Bears]: Great, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by, and myself as amended by Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public in person or on Zoom? Seeing none in person, we'll go to Bill Giglio on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, as far as I'm aware, the Board of Health has been engaged as well in Medford, and they have sent a number of comments along. They've requested action by the Mass. Department of Environmental Protection, and the MBTA's response has essentially been that, according to them, they don't have any proof that it's not safe and that this is a project required by the Federal Railroad Administration. And that's essentially been their response. I mean, they have... To give them some credit, they have responded to the emails. Beyond that, the responses have not really been sufficient.
[Zac Bears]: We don't have any authority to order them to stop work.
[Zac Bears]: Right, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, much appreciated. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. You already read it, right? Yeah. A resident sent around some EPA regulations around creosote. And then they said, well, these are creosote soap ties. So it's a different, you know, I mean, it's just kind of a run around. Yeah, they haven't burned. So if you go down to the neighborhood, I'm not going down there. It's it's a brutal smell. I mean, it's persistent and pervasive. Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Oh, Any further discussion by members of the public on this item? One more. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: It's baffling. We sent all the same information over and they said we have to get the project done. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Just thinking out loud. We've we've asked for a number that was Andrew Castagnetti, by the way. We've asked for a number of solutions, moving them, storing them differently. They're pretty solid. They're locked into their position. Any further discussion? On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli and myself, as amended by Councilor Tseng, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 24-078 offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss the Mayor's request in hiring an outside consultant to review Medford Fire Department policies and procedures with additional cost to the taxpayers of Medford. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Well, I don't know if anyone's noticed, but given that we are having a relatively short night. I haven't been putting the timer on. God, you haven't put up the buzzer. I haven't put up the timer. That's pretty good. It's because it's supposed to manage when we need to manage time, and we've been good tonight about managing our time. I do want to note one thing, which is when we received that email, I did request, ask the question of the mayor about whether there'll be a public report, and specifically with regards to how the council can be a collaborative part of strategic planning. And she said, yes, there'll be a public report, and we'll be provided with the report and recommendations. Before we go to members of the Fire Union, I do want to see if there's any further comment by members of the Council. Seeing none, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any questions for members of the council? I have two, if no one else has any. Number one, you mentioned a grant councilor Scarpelli, do you guys want to talk about that at all? That's good news, can I?
[Zac Bears]: So that would get us from 111 to 122.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, 15 plus, so 20, 106 plus 20. Yes, because we have five being hired. So now it's 106 plus 16.
[Zac Bears]: Just so I can get the numbers straight. It sounds to me like this FEMA grant based on the National Fire Protection Standards would be, they want us at 132 firefighters.
[Zac Bears]: And that would be like the overshooting if we were shooting for 132. we're budgeted for 122, we only have 106. We're bringing on five, which gets us to 111. And she went for another 11, which just brings us to 122, which we're already budgeted for. So this would just be basically using federal money to pay for something we're already budgeting for, not trying to use it to go above the 122. And that's because the concern is that after three years, how do you pay for over 122? Yes. Okay. Yeah, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: It's not as complicated as how they funded walking court. Let me tell you that.
[Zac Bears]: I just wanted to clarify along those lines when you say we submitted is that the union has submitted or the union work with the chief to submit or the union staff wrote it and the chief submitted I just fired apart the whole fire staff with the exception of the chief is part of the union but we had like firefighters that worked on duty during the day.
[Zac Bears]: Great, and it's on behalf of the fire department.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll take it.
[Zac Bears]: We'll send you our budget ordinance too.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comments?
[Zac Bears]: Mandatory overtime.
[Zac Bears]: After the next five coming through, is there any more pipeline updates that you've received?
[Zac Bears]: Got it. All right. Any further discussion? We do have one person on Zoom. I'll go to Maureen on Zoom. Name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen. There are a number of people on the city staff who look at different grants. We have a CDBG, which is Community Development Block Grant, and other grants manager in the planning department. There's a federal funds manager in the finance department. And the city actually has been historically very successful at bringing in outside grant funding. And I super appreciate hearing. It's a testament what you just said. You've been successful in the past. You're hoping to be successful again. Oftentimes, departments are looking for grants in their specific fields. Chief Buckley's been up here before from the police department talking about grants that people on his team have looked at. But, you know, in general, these grants are for specific purposes and are meant for specific projects, not to supplement the city's need for operating funds. So that's one of the major issues. I think that sounds like one of the issues you ran into here is that, you know, this grant is ideally to go beyond what the city is doing on operating funds. So it's while the city has brought in a lot of grants, and if you go to the city finance department page and you look at what's called the ACFR, comprehensive financial report. You can see there's a line in there and you and in some years, the city's brought in as many as 10 million 15 million in grants, but they're generally one off like the 2 million brought in for the car park project or, you know, money brought in to hire specific staff for specific studies or specific times and not to supplement. the general fund budget. The only money that comes to us to supplement the general fund budget is from the state Chapter 90 program, the UGA, which is the worst name, Unrestricted General Government Aid, and Chapter 70 school funding, which are generally the only thing out there where we as a city get money to fund the general fund that doesn't come from local taxes and fees.
[Zac Bears]: I appreciate it. Hopefully, we can actually solve this. Any further comments, questions on the paper before us? Mr. Jones.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think, sorry, and I'll go to Councilor Kiley. I think we're almost around the horseshoe here to the point that I think I'll speak for myself and for no one else. One of the reasons I ran for office here is because this city makes penny wise pound foolish decisions all the time because there's not enough money. And that's where we come around, right? we don't wanna submit 126, because then we might have to pay for four in three years. Even though we get three years of money, we're worried about paying for four, three years from now, because we don't have the money to pay for the four, three years from now. And that's the larger question here, right? Like we can write grants, we can try to bring in more money, we can do these questions, but if we're constantly in the position of, and that's like saying, we've all talked about here tonight, that's if it doesn't go down more. We're hoping that we'll stay at 122 for three years, because at least then we won't be more penalized. And that's where my frustration really comes in, in the long run. I can understand both positions, because the city has never raised more. The city's never, since 2 and 1 half in 1980 said, when I believe when we've talked about there were 150 firefighters back then, and now we're down to 140, 130, now we're down to 122. There's nothing in the last 40 years of city government evidence that the city's gonna say, okay, we're gonna bring the money back to go back to at least 126 or 132. So the mayor says, oh, well, and I mean, it comes down to this too, right? It sounds to me like that's not gonna be the, even if we do go back and ask for more, that's not gonna be the first thing we go back and ask for. So we're not gonna put in the grant and then we're never gonna get the grant, right? I don't think he'll be saying anything to say that we've disagreed on things, you and I, Mr. Jones here. People usually do. And when we usually do, and I disagree with all of my fellow councillors sometimes and members of the public, but this is where all of this stuff comes back to the core of it. financial mismanagement you're right well well it's it's we can say it's if you want to call financial mismanagement then it's 40 years of financial mismanagement and and a set of bad practices that this administration the previous administration and the administration before it held and i'm willing to i'm willing to to go down for that one you know but it's a it's a lack of imagination and understanding and and going and saying we need more money than we're raising. If we're never going to raise it, then we're never going to invest. And then you're stuck in these positions where it's actually cheaper to put $10,000 outside than bring someone inside or do the $122,000 than the $126,000. And now I've gone on too long from the chair and probably said too much of an opinion from the chair, so I'm going to stop. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussion?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We appreciate the time in the effort as always, and I think, you know, just to echo what Councilor Callahan said. We have so much work to do, and when we are taking our time and our energy at cross purposes rather than in the same direction, that's a disservice to getting the work done. So I think, you know, we can agree to disagree, but if we're moving in the same direction, and I appreciate that that is happening, that many of us are trying to do that, and if we could all do it better, we'd be in a much better position. So thank you for your work.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, let me just get that down. Motion to request answer from mayor on FEMA grant being submitted for 11 firefighters instead of 15 firefighters. Correct.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know why she wouldn't do the four unless she has a secret she's not telling us. All right, so on the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes 70 from him. The negative motion passes 24-079 resolution request update on the crystal Campbell Peace Garden. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer the paper to the DPW Commissioner, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan, Councilor Saint.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to refer to the DPW Commissioner. Any further comment? Any comment by members of the public? Mr. Casta, any name and address for the record, please?
[Zac Bears]: You need to buy me one of those.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Sarpelli to refer, Mr. Leonard, do you want to jump in on this one?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, to refer to DPW. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seventy per minute on the negative motion passes. 24-080, Personnel Ordinance Amendment, Supervisor of Water and Sewer, to Honorable President and Members of the Medford City Council. Dear Mr. President and Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend the City Council approve the following amendment. The revised ordinance is Chapter 66, entitled Personnel, Article 2, entitled Reserved. the city's classification and compensation plan, formally included as Article 2, Section 6631 to 6640, by adopting the following language. The language of PW 18 shall be amended to remove the following position, and the language of PW 19 be amended to include the following position. Supervisor of Water and Sewer, the city has had this position posted at PW 18 for months and has not received any qualified applications. This proposed classification change would not require a supplemental appropriation. Respectfully submitted. This is a proposal to move the supervisor of water and sewer position from PW 18 in the city's compensation plan to PW 19. The justification is that this position has been posted since the beginning of this position was included in the fiscal 24 budget and posted for months and there have not been qualified applicants. And as noted, this would not require supplemental appropriation. Is there any discussion on the paper? Vice President Collins to present. I'll go to Vice President Collins and Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: The motion of Councilor Collins to approve the first reading seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Sorry. So I, since there were too much on the floor, I wanted to give enough time for you to kind of just suss out if there was a compromise motion here, given that there isn't a compromise motion, there's a motion of the table on the floor that is undebatable and takes precedence. So I want to cut debate off at this point. On the motion of the table of Councilor Scarpelli, is there a second? A second by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Let me tell you something. If you say yes, I'm getting dinner by 50 people. No, but that's because we can keep talking about it. So let's keep going. The motion fails. Three affirmative, four negative. Motion fails. Councilor Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: No, I hear you and I just wanted I just didn't motion to table is a tough instrument that this allows debate but I so I had to handle it procedurally. My, it sounds like I'm the swing on this. My personal preference would be, given the fact that there's not a representative of the administration here tonight to answer our questions, that we request a representative of the administration to appear at our next meeting with the answer to this question. So that's just my personal preference. You know, I would tend to agree with you, Councilor Collins. I don't know that there's a way to, it sounds like there's general agreement that we would advance this pending the answer to that question.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, motion to, maybe we can get the answer in advance. Yeah, so motion to request an answer on the question, on Councilor Scarpelli's question about voting on this while the position is in arbitration and request representative administration at the next meeting and put this on the table for April 30th.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, yes.
[Zac Bears]: So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to, um, request a response from Council on on the question about this position being an arbitration, and if that impacts our vote. Seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Madam Clerk, please
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. The request is made to the administration for an answer to the question and presence at our next meeting, and the item is tabled until our April 30th meeting. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Motion by Vice President Collins to take paper 21057 off the table and approve for third reading. Seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Leaf floor ordinance is eligible for third reading. And the motion of Councilor Collins to take it off the table and approve for third reading. Seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: It's not eligible till next month. Oh, sorry. You're good. uh, on that motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Tseng to take from third from the table and approve for third reading. Any discussion? Any discussion in the chambers or on zoom by members of the public? I see a hand raised. I will go to Norman Kaplan. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: just procedure, Norman, where we are at, uh, the language as amended and approved for first reading on March 12th was advertised in the local newspaper on April 4th, and that was, uh, you know, that was, that is a legal requirement under mass general law that we, that we put the text of the ordinance as approved for first reading, um, out, uh, in the advertising. And now we would be approving for third reading. My understanding of the process is that if we were to amend that third reading, we would have to then start the process again, uh, reapprove it for first reading and re advertise it.
[Zac Bears]: That was advertised in the Medford transcript and Somerville Medford and Somerville transcript and journal, or what's left of it.
[Zac Bears]: So this vote would be a vote to put this in the ordinances and creating an ordinance and acting an ordinance. So this is the vote for enactment. I would then go to the mayor for her signature of veto and or neither. And if she signs it or does not veto it, then we would start the process of getting that up on the city's muni code website. at which point, at some point in the future, basically it'll go up as its own ordinance and then it will be codified in the city's code of ordinances online.
[Zac Bears]: The mayor could veto the ordinance which would return it to this council for further consideration. We could override her veto. We could amend the ordinance and begin the process again to go to first reading and then an advertisement and then the third reading again.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it would be so it would probably be back to us. mid-May and then have to go out again for another month, so probably would be mid-June or July when it would be completed?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. I appreciate your input and comments on the process. And certainly if the mayor were to come back to the council with suggestions, I'm sure that the council would consider them in good faith.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion. of Councilor Collins to approve her third reading as seconded by Councilor Saing. Any further comment from members of the public or members of the Council? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one of the negative. The motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins to take paper 17-606, 20-086, 22-007, 22-009, and 22-039. Second. And receive and place on file. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one very much in the negative.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, the motion passes. I did receive a communication. One of the emailers in public comment did specifically ask me to read the email out loud. I'm going to read this email out loud. It is not my words, but it was a specific request. The subject is civility and professionalism in city council meetings. Dear President Vares, Vice President Collins, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Tseng, and Councilor Leming, I'm ready to express my appreciation for your amazing work as city councilors that represent the trust our electorate has placed in you. Your professionalism in handling the mob approach that a vocal minority who are attending some of the city council meetings is very deeply appreciated. Please keep up your excellent work. I would appreciate your reading my brief email out loud in the next council meeting. Sincerely, Munir Jumanis, PhD, physicist, educator. Thank you all.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: But thank you. Thank you. And I do want to thank Councilor Strudel for bringing up prior councils and behaviors and how I would note that everyone on this council has sat and listened to the public comment regardless of It's content. It doesn't mean we haven't responded in different ways. Some of the incidents referred to, I'll just say that some people were named and others were not when everyone reacted in the same way. And to be honest, I think there's a difference between a good faith misinterpretation of someone's tone and disrespect. So I just want to put that out there too. Sometimes I tell a joke and nobody laughs. Does that mean it was not a joke? No. So, and sometimes I'm not telling a joke and people laugh, and that's just because I'm very funny. But I'm going to go to the podium, Mr. Castagnetti, and then we can wrap up this shebang unless there's other councillors who want to speak.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you've made Sylvia happy, Councilor Callahan. Motion to adjourn, Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Scarpelli and I being a model for all marathon runners on the motion. to adjourn, 10-10, let's get Sylvia home, by Councilor Callaghan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present.
[Zac Bears]: President is thank you Assistant City Clerk to Placido for your service this evening. I vote yes. Six in the affirmative one present motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee, April 10th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. For present one absent, the meeting is called to order. This meeting will take place at 6 p.m. City Council Chambers, second floor, Medford City Hall, 85 George B. Hassett Drive, Medford MA, and via Zoom. To submit written comments, please email adamherdevese at medford-ma.gov. The action discussion item for today is 24.033, offered by President Bears and Vice President Collins, which is the zoning ordinance updates with the Innes Associates team. So welcome, everybody. This is our second, third, I can't even, a third meeting, I think so far on the zoning project. I am sitting in his chair today because we do not have Councilor Collins and Leming are on Zoom, so I'm chairing from the podium, but they are here. Via Zoom, we received a memorandum as requested from NS Associates around the zoning project that we are working on, which is our comprehensive zoning update to align our zoning ordinance with the comprehensive plan, climate action and adaptation plan, open space and bike plan, housing production plan, and did I forget any other plans? So all of those plans had gone through years of public process, public meetings, charretting, surveying of the public, and those plans can be found on the city website and at city hall. and that's also this is a follow-up to the 2020 to 2022 project that this council did to recodify the city's zoning ordinance for the first time in 60 years and create a more readable and accessible format. I think a quick summary before we dive into the memo and we have Paula from Innes Associates who's going to go through it. Um, but basically so far we have met in this committee, uh, after bringing on in this associates through a bid process last fall, we've met in this committee to discuss the outlines of our project. We've generally grouped, uh, we're going to group our zoning changes into three phases. Phase one are items that we can do between now and June 30th of 2024. And these are simpler changes, fixes, technical corrections. to the zoning ordinance recommendations from our planning staff, building commissioner and building department staff, the zoning board of appeals, community development board, to identify issues in the zoning and correct them. Phase two, which will be starting before June 30th, but probably won't be coming to the city council until after June 30th, are some potential changes that require more analysis or research. And then phase 3, which will begin in July, are changes driven by what's been accomplished in the first two phases, and that'll be continuing through the end of 2024, likely through June and even September of 2025. and we've identified 10 topic areas that we will be grouping these under, and they are climate resiliency, housing production, housing affordability, addressing our major squares, mixed-use corridors, streets and neighborhoods, economic development and business growth, the zoning map and zoning districts, zoning uses and dimensional requirements, and transportation and multimodal ways. So that is a general summary of how we got here, where we'll be going, and I will turn it over to Paula from Innes Associates, who can go through the memo that we received last week.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, we can.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins. Vice President Collins, your hands raised on Zoom. Paula, you can keep going. We'll come back to Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan, sorry.
[Zac Bears]: I think we should go through it and then, if that's OK, finish the memo and then jump back in. So we can go through the rest of the memo. I don't think you need to read everything, Paula, but just give us a general summary of each section and what it means, I think, should be sufficient for me.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Paula. I think this is a great roadmap getting us going. And I appreciate the comprehensive plan references in here, as well, as someone who wrote, I think, a nine-page comment on the draft comprehensive plan. I will turn over to Councilors for questions. I saw Councilor Callahan, and then I will jump back to Vice President Collins. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. I think the question is just under the site of interview topics that mentions Dover Municipal, Administrative, Minor, and Major. I can just quickly say that Dover Municipal is a Dover amendment uses, so exempt non-profits, Tufts University is our biggest one, who have different zoning requirements than most other owners of property as well as municipal uses. The rest of them, I think, maybe a little bit more subjective in terms of, or maybe up to us for how to define what is minor, what is major, and I'm not quite sure on administrative, so I will let Paula or we also have Director Hunt in the room. kind of try to define those a little further. And maybe the point of this is that we need to define them a little further.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. I'll go to Director Hunt on that one as the new age running of all site plan review.
[Zac Bears]: The generals on the three three ish processes and then you can get we can get into the details but essentially uses can allow we can allow by the zoning property owners to do something by right which basically means they just have to get a building permit. It's by right they don't have to go through further process. We can do you know their site plan review for certain there's a threshold at which site plan review applies and there's this process. And then there's also things that are only allowed by special permit, which is. almost always include site plan review to my knowledge, but also there is a conditionality of yes or no or yes with conditions. So those are kind of the three big buckets. We can get into variances and appeals and zoning more about those, but I don't. So that's kind of the three things. And then these would be within that site plan review and it would apply both for that middle threshold and to then site plan review for special permits is my understanding.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, right now 94, 11.7 defined site plan review. Anything residential over six units, including conversions, non residential over 10,000 square feet or adding more than 10,000 square feet. Any parking lot, including municipal lots, not accessory to principle uses projects involving a change in principle use of a building containing more than 10,000 square feet. Any drive through restaurant. any eating place that's not a drive-through that's more than 5,000 square feet, medical offices over 10,000 square feet, gas stations, and any neighborhood and convenience retail sales.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions, Councilor Calhoun? Great. I will go to Councilor Leming and then Council Vice President Collins. If you have a question, just raise your hand. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Go to Director Hutt or Paula. How about a director hug?
[Zac Bears]: I think that just to add to Councilor Leming, the key three ones for some of the elements of this project that have been suggested are the inclusionary, the transportation, the TDM study, and then the linkage nexus. So wondering on those three.
[Zac Bears]: that helps. Great.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah, I think just, and I'll go back to Councilor Leming in just a second, but given the timelines that we're laying out here, if we're not relatively secure by early mid-fall on getting those studies funded and completed, then we're probably running out the clock, or at least going pretty late into next fall. So just want to flag that timeline.
[Zac Bears]: And maybe, can we look at Community One Stop, maybe? Yes. Okay.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go back to Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Is there a draft ordinance or is there just a draft language of some kind to be incorporated into this process? I'll go to Paula in a second. I know Councilor Leming has that Mystic Valley TDM group would be interested in that. So I'm going to go to Paul.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know if council, I mean, you want to clarify the proposal at all and then we can go to Paula.
[Zac Bears]: Got it. Thank you, Councilor Leming, and I'll go to Paula to talk any more about this element of the zoning project.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you both. Any further questions by members of the council on this memo, Councilor Callahan?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I just want to add to, and I'm just going to share screen really quickly. You know, we had sent out the call for folks to send in various items to, so I think it was to Alicia and Kit to connect with Emily. And that was, you know, to inform this memo. So we have some of them in here in the status updates, but I think the idea is that if there is any, If there's anything like that, an idea, something you want to put on the table as a Councilor to put under a proposed change, submit that through the process, and Alicia and I can clarify exactly who it needs to go to. That'll get it added into this table. Eventually, a lot of the comp plan and other plan updates will be added into this table and we'll kind of have a running. You know, every couple meetings, we'll get a new memo like this that says, here's this change. Here's where the phase it's in. Here's the status update. You know, it's out to legal counsel or, you know, doing research or whatever it might be. We're waiting to hear back from lower mystic transportation Management Association. Um, so that is kind of the intent here. Um, so if there are items and then I will also work with chair Collins to make sure that anything that was in the governing agenda that was kind of around this project gets referred in here and put into this table as well. Um, this is this is pretty much a first draft and I will go to vice president Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you, Vice President Collins. And, you know, I think just to echo that and add one thing, you know, if there are some of these buckets are going to be big and ideas are going to come up as we work through them. Some of them, I mean, if there's something really outside the box that we're definitely sure is going to need to get studied, I will say, knowing about that sooner than later, the more that I look through this, the more I'm like, oh, well, we have everything we're going to do with, you know, not necessarily in this list, but it feels like we're pretty booked up through September 2025. So that's, there's just a lot to do here and only so many funds and so much capacity. Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Just want to go to the building commissioner who did submit some zoning change recommendations. Mr. Commissioner, if you want to go over any of the recommendations that you submitted to us for this meeting.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. This is really helpful. And also, just in general, please let us know how we can best engage with you as we move through the process. We have, and this associates with the planning department, I'm sure that there's communication there that I don't know about among city staff, but if there's anything, any way that you wanna be involved in a different way than you are in this project, we really wanna engage the building department as kind of the front line of enforcing a lot of this zoning code and making sure that it is written in a way that can be interpreted by your team effectively.
[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. And Director, maybe we could consider, maybe we could just follow up with Councilor Collins offline about that question. All right, any questions from members of the Council on what came in through the Building Commissioner? Just a minute, yes, and we'll go to public participation once Councilors are done. Seeing no questions for the building commissioner, I just wanted to say one more thing, which was to ask Director Hunt, from the CD board and the ZBA chairs or members, what's our best way, or when do we expect that they might be able to engage in a similar process of sharing a list like what the building department was able to share?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and if you want to throw in as an example, just, I mean, I think, you know, as a starting point, this quick list from building, it's just a couple of pages, but it's also like 25 really good things. So quick and good is always, I think, helpful for all of us. Any further questions from members of the council? Seeing none, I will open us up for public participation, and you can come to the podium or raise your hand on zoom name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I could just say that for the scope of this project, and depending on what happens with the municipal uses and site plan review, like the public ways, when zoning doesn't apply to the public ways, the public ways are controlled by different state laws and ordinances. So this is mostly about regulations of private property through the zoning code. But I will defer to Director Hunt, who may have more knowledge than I do, generally does.
[Zac Bears]: Great.
[Zac Bears]: I will see what we can do there with our software. We could probably at least include a link to MuniCode itself in general. They might have to go searching for their specific section, but say this is the zoning ordinance and then the plans as well.
[Zac Bears]: That's a great idea. I think we can throw that we might it might end up in the full text and description section rather than the attachment section because of how the software works. But yeah, that's perfect.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comments by members of the public? Raise your hands on zoom or run down to the city council chambers in the next two minutes and we'll recognize you. All right, seeing none, are there any motions on the floor? I actually have one that I would ask a colleague to make if they will, but any further, any comments before, comments or motions before that? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. And I just have two motions that I can't make as chair, so if anyone would like to make them for me, I'll just say what they are. Yeah, I'll do it. Thanks, Matt. It would just be the first motion would be to have the committee chair send around the request for input from members of the council for any policy items. Just send that around once again. And also, my second motion, and you can take it as one, whatever you want to do with it, Matt, would just be that we get an update from Planning and Development Sustainability by the end of June on the status of funding and procurement for the studies that we discussed today.
[Zac Bears]: If you want to amend that to May, that's fine with me.
[Zac Bears]: That sounds good to me. Councilor Luebing, how does that sound?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Okay. I'll jump in too, Paula.
[Zac Bears]: Just a clarification on my end at least, I think it would be great if these studies were like in the same section, but maybe had their own table because I think there's an extra level of, you know, work we're going to need to do in terms of securing funding and etc. and work that's already being done by staff on that front.
[Zac Bears]: There's no time anymore. It's just going to be adding it to the memo in perpetuity. On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callaghan. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. We're in the affirmative, none of the negative, one absent. The motion passes. Any further discussion or motions on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Leming to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, for the negative one absent, the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody.
[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council, seventh regular meeting, April 2, 2024. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Councilor Sanders. Present. 7 present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. Thank you all. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 24-062 offered by President Bears. Is there a motion to join with 24-070 by Councilor Scarpelli? On the motion of Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favour?
[Zac Bears]: Opposed? Motion passes. This is 24-062 be it resolved. by the Medford City Council that we honor and commemorate the dedicated service of former Medford Mayor and State Representative John J. Jack McGlynn and the United States Army and the 3132 Signal Service Company, part of the World War II Ghost Army, upon posthumous receipt of the Congressional Gold Medal on March 21st. Be it further resolved that we dedicate this meeting in honor of all of those who served in the Ghost Army to defend democracy, the people of the United States, and all humankind. And we have 24070. by Councilor Scarpelli, be it resolved that the Medford City Council recognize and thank former Mayor Jack McGlynn for his service to our great country, and finally being recognized for his heroism in being awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his service as a member of the Secret Ghost Army during World War II. I'll be brief and I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli, but my favorite anecdote in the news stories that have come out about this was former Mayor Mike McGlynn talking about how he got a phone call when he was mayor from a news source in the 90s, and it was about, they were saying, oh, well, we've learned about the Ghost Army, we learned your father, former Mayor Jack McGlynn, was in the Ghost Army, and he called his dad, and his dad's response was, who told you that? I need to track that down, because it was that much of a secret, and even 50 years later, he wanted to know how that information had gotten out there, and I think that just shows the dedication and service that he gave to the city and the country. And with that, I'll turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comment? And if you don't know about the Ghost Army, I really recommend taking a look. There's been some really great articles, NPR, a few other ones that are free, no paywall. There's about 2,000 people who, with signals intelligence and inflatable tanks, tricked the Nazis into thinking they were 50,000 people and saved a lot of lives while doing it. Any public comment? Mr. Castagnetti? Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion by myself and Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng, all those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24063, offered by Vice President Collins and Councilor Tseng, be it resolved that the Medford City Council recognize the holy month of Ramadan and wish a happy Ramadan and an easy fast to all who observe. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Saing and Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Callaghan, any further discussion? All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of March 19th, 2024 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records? Councilor Scarpelli found the records in order and moves approval, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. Reports of committees. 24045, committee of the whole report, March 19th, 2024. This was our final meeting on budget recommendations, which were submitted to the mayor. We have received an informal acknowledgement of receipt and expect a formal response. We also expect budget meetings to begin in the middle of this month. I think April 17th will be our first meeting. So that is an improvement. We should have by then, not only warrant articles, but also quarter one, two, and three budget to actuals and revenue projections for fiscal year 25. On the motion to approve by Councilor Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. On 2020 offered by President Bears committee, the whole report to follow food trucks. We had another confusing meeting on food trucks on March 20th 2024. I think we managed to land at the end with a decent understanding of what legal authority applies to food trucks on what properties, but there's going to be further discussion on this matter. Is there a motion to approve or any further discussion on the report? On the motion approved by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-056 and 24-057, Administration and Finance Committee report, March 26, 2024. This was on ordinance language updates to the linkage fee that was reported out of committee and is on the agenda for the Council tonight to refer to the Community Development Board. to initiate the zoning amendment process. Any further discussion? Is there a motion to approve? On the motion of Vice President Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. to 3-474 governance committee report, March 26th, 2024. Councilor Tseng is the chair of that committee.
[Zac Bears]: And this is more of a post-election internal report All right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve the committee report, any further discussion? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23-427 and 24-008, Planning and Permitting Committee Report, March 27th, 2024. Councilor Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 23-319, Raisin Cane hearings. 23-319, Raisin Cane, 760 Fellsway. that we have a special permit for on additional on premises signage. We had a public hearing at our meeting on March 19th, which was continued to today, April 2nd. And that is on signage for raising canes. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, chair of the Subcommittee on Licensing, Permitting and Signs, and then we will hear from the petitioner, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Kathy, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Cathy. Any questions or comments by members of the Council? Seeing none, I'm going to reopen the public hearing to anyone who would like to speak in favor, in opposition, or otherwise has a comment on this matter. The public hearing is reopened. Would you like to speak in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment by members of the public on the special permit for additional on-premises signage for raising canes, you can come to the podium or you can raise your hand on Zoom. Let me give it just another minute here. name and address for the record please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, this is just about the signs and we did the special permit on other items already, but I do believe Raising Cane's is making improvements at the lot area. Kathy, if you want to speak on it.
[Zac Bears]: I believe there were new paint marks as well were?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further comment on the special permit for signage for Raisin Canes? Seeing none in the chamber and none on Zoom, I'm declaring the public hearing closed. Are there any motions?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you Councilor Scarpelli on the motion to approve the special permit for additional on premises signage for Raising Cane seconded by Vice President Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none negative. The motion is approved. 24-056 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution to bring linkage pre-ordinance in compliance with the State Act establishing the ordinance. Is there a motion to waive the reading in favour of a summary by the chair? motion the motion by Council I mean to waive the reading in favor of summary by the chair seconded by Councilor Callahan all those in favor. Opposed motion passes. So we did discuss this in our administration and Finance Committee meeting last week, and essentially what was referred out of committee. is a number of technical amendments. There are some errors in the linkage fee ordinance referring to different trust funds and sending money to all of the money right now, technically, by ordinance is going to the parks fund, even if it's money for the water sewer system or schools or whatever else it may be. And then also adding a bucket for affordable housing, which is authorized by the a special act of 1989, but was never passed into ordinance in 1990. So the process from here on out is there will be a referral to the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board will hold a public hearing. They will issue comments and recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing considering those recommendations. And then there would be a final vote on the amended linkage fee zoning ordinance at that point. Any further discussion by members of the council or any motions on the floor? Council Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Collins to refer to the Community Development Board, seconded by Councilor Leming. Any further discussion? Any discussion by members of the public? If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand. Seeing none, on the motion of Council Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative. None the negative. The motion passes and the item is referred to the Community Development Board. Vice President Collins can ask you to take the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, having spoken with not just the planning department, but also code enforcement, building inspectors, et cetera, And also, this is a policy that's in effect in Boston, Worcester, other communities around the city, around the state. There's a huge issue with being able to identify what's an owner-occupied home, what is a rental unit, what's an illegal rental unit, and this would go a long way. I think I was listening to Councilor Tseng talk a bit about this. Building code, health and safety, you know, there's a lot of difficulty with reaching out. We send it out in the tax bill, absentee landlord, absentee property owner, maybe they never open the envelope and maybe they never see it, right? So there's a number of things when it comes to quality of life here in a community where this would be a huge benefit for the city to be able to identify this and I think the good and important thing to recognize is that most of the people who are renting property owners or renting properties in the city are the right thing, following the rules, you know, and this is a way for the city to provide access to the different programs and benefits available and be in contact. And then for the folks who are problem properties, and we know of them, and we know many of them are in the hillside neighborhood and over-renting to tough students, and we have overgrowth, and we've had petitions coming in here before, this is a way for the city to actually keep track of that. And that's been a huge note from code enforcement and building, is that It's just hard to say, here's the file on this property. And this property may be violating snow and ice removal. They may have overgrowth under the street. They may have trash on the property. They may have noise nuisance complaints. They may have a whole plethora list of things. But because there's no registry, there's nothing to attach any of that to. And they get away with it. So this really is a way for us to have that list, know what's going on in the city, and make sure that while most folks are doing the right thing, address the issues with those who are not. And I think that's something that all of us can acknowledge is an issue that we all experience here in Medford. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note that the departments themselves have requested it and it's part of the city's comprehensive plan. It is true. Thank you. I'm not going to engage. Seriously, my role is to just state facts. Okay, please stop. Please stop. Thank you. You have to be silent. Thank you. Any further comments by members of the council? Seeing none, name and address for the record, please, for public participation.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. If they don't pay, then they are contacted.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, as was as was noted, and please do not if you're going to shout, I'm going to ask you to leave. Thank you people. I just want to if you I can answer your question, which is that the people who are responsible for enforcing the building code have said that this would make their jobs easier.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, the people who work in the building department, the building commissioners. Are they here? It was just mentioned. Well, we're not, we haven't had them, we're just referring to the committee. So we're going to have the discussion as members of the public have noted, we're going to have a long discussion just on this topic so that everyone can have their points concerned, so that points like Councilor Scarpelli's can be raised and so that we can craft an ordinance that works for the community.
[Zac Bears]: We're going, okay, I don't think we need to be verifying anything. We're gonna have a discussion.
[Zac Bears]: I have, and I'm disappointed. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just a reminder that the disruption does take away from the speaker's time.
[Zac Bears]: That's not a municipal election, that's a state primary.
[Zac Bears]: I'm not going to engage in the back and forth, but as I noted, this is in the city's comprehensive plan and was requested by several departments in the city as a way to... Okay, well, I'd like to know who they are. I just told you it's the building department and the planning department. I don't believe you, to be honest with you. Okay, well, I'm sorry that you don't believe it. You can continue your comment, but I'm not going to engage in the back and forth.
[Zac Bears]: No, you're here to make comments and we will hear them.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Zoom with Kayla Lazzaro. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: No, sorry. I'm going to Zoom. Sorry.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: You have one minute.
[Zac Bears]: I didn't quite say that. I said we know that there's a small percentage of people who are problem landlords, but code enforcement has said because there's no registry, it can be difficult to track them down and we are well aware that there are a lot of corporate owners using shell corporations and they're almost impossible for the city to get in touch with. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, and I will note we do have a business license program. All businesses are licensed, and this council on multiple budgets has requested additional funding for code enforcement, including in the most recent budget. We currently only have two code enforcement officers.
[Zac Bears]: We're doing that. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: There's nothing in the ordinance that would suggest that whatsoever.
[Zac Bears]: I would just note again that this doesn't say anything like that.
[Zac Bears]: This doesn't say anything.
[Zac Bears]: I have said point Councilor Scarpelli. I have the authority to respond with facts. These are not factual facts. You would please tell me where this says that we're going to discriminate ethnically against.
[Zac Bears]: What's
[Zac Bears]: So let me just... All right, if we're gonna shout again, I'm gonna ask you to leave.
[Zac Bears]: You have 30 seconds, you have 15 seconds actually.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Penta.
[Zac Bears]: I am not through yet. Your time is up. Mr. Penta, please step away from the podium. I'm not going to call the police on you. Well, you should be respectful.
[Zac Bears]: I'll wait, thank you. Thank you very much for waiting. No, we're not gonna hear from you, but I'll wait for you to step away, thank you. Okay, we're gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Jess, you have five minutes. Jess, you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. You can go, you have five minutes. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I don't understand that. That's a rhetorical question. The city council salary has not increased since 2012. That's a rhetorical question. But it's incorrect. The city council salary has not increased since 2016.
[Zac Bears]: Our salary has not increased, and we are meeting more than ever.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. There's no one on Zoom right now, but.
[Zac Bears]: No hands on Zoom, go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: No, you can speak to me.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ms. Diaz. I'm going to go to Jennifer Fiore on Zoom. Give me one second here. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: One second point of information.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Yeah, I think... Please respect the meeting, respect this person's time.
[Zac Bears]: Tony Tanks on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Tony, I requested to unmute you. You have to accept my request. Thank you. Can you hear me?
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Yes, sometimes the facts are the facts. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion? Anyone want to go? Go ahead. Name and address the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, John. Would anyone else like to speak who hasn't spoken yet? Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Please direct your comments to the chair.
[Zac Bears]: People saying you this you that. Please direct your comments.
[Zac Bears]: Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: You can speak to me and if you have comments, she'll hear them.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Nick, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. Nick, I've requested to unmute you. You have to accept.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All I can offer you is that you can email me and I'll set up a conversation with you and we connect you with the city to see what resources the city can provide. Gonna go to Mr. Cassidy then Jessica Healy Mr. Cassidy you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We definitely have had a lot of conversations about owner-occupied. I think you'd actually find that if we were to implement it, it would increase, it shifts the burden within the property tax levy. It would actually increase the taxes on a lot of small multifamily homes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jessica Healy on Zoom. name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: Many of the policies we've been discussing are part of the city's comprehensive plan, climate plan, and housing plan, which are available on the city website, and they include recommendations for council action. This is one of them.
[Zac Bears]: And comprehensive plan as well, the citywide comprehensive.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just, the clerk has noted to me that Massachusetts general does not require public body, step public participation. It is something that we choose to do. All right. Name and address for the record.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to Maureen on Zoom for five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Maureen. Maureen, can we get your name and address for the record?
[Zac Bears]: get your name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Any further comment on this agenda item? Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor?
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of councilor second refers the committee on planning and permitting seconded by seconded by council vice president cons Councilor Leming just Councilor Leming
[Zac Bears]: I am the council president. Thank you. Do you have any more to say, Matt? No. Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: after all the committee meetings.
[Zac Bears]: Leaf blower was five, budget was seven.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. So we're at about two minutes left. It's by the City Council rules. There's 15 minutes to debate the call for the previous question of Councilor Tseng, and the discussion remains to Councilors only. So we have one minute left on that. Are there any other Councilors who'd like to speak? Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Vice President Collins, thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: I think that's- I think Councilor Collins, you have about 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to call the previous question and debate and move to a final vote, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. This is to end debate for previous question.
[Zac Bears]: It's the rule. He called the question and that were initiates a period of 15 minutes of debate among the council, after which by majority vote, we will move to a final vote.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, two in the negative. We've called the question on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by, to send to the Planning and Permitting Committee, seconded by Council Vice President Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Actually, I don't have to call the roll. All those in favor?
[Zac Bears]: Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Yes, I believe Councilors are, Councilor Scarpelli said that they were opposed. 24-060 offered by Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming, and Councilor Tseng. Resolution to amend the City Council rules. Be it resolved that rule 16 of the rules of the Medford City Council be amended to state the following. I'm gonna read the existing rule, and then I'm going to read the proposed rule. The existing rule is public participation. Any resident, petitioner, or interested party Please take your conversations outside. Thank you. Please take your conversations outside. Thank you. The existing rule 16 is any resident petitioner interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than five minutes, all petitions filed by members of the public shall either be sponsored by a member or reviewed by the city clerk and Council President prior to prior to placement on the agenda, any resident participating in person may provide their residential address to the city messenger If any resident participating virtually may provide their residential address to the city clerk prior to speaking and the address shall not be included in the council records. A six calendar day public comment period shall commence upon the consideration of any petition as defined in rule 19 public comments shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk the council can waive this requirement by majority vote. And this would be replaced to state the following any resident or interested party shall be able to speak on any item included on the agenda once for no more than two minutes. public participation shall not exceed 90 minutes per agenda item during a single meeting. Interested parties may also contribute written public comment on agenda items via an online form on the Medford City Council website or a paper form in the office of the city clerk. All petitions filed by members, that hasn't changed. the in-person residential address hasn't changed, and the public comment period hasn't changed. So it is just a change to the first paragraph of the proposal. Councilor Lazzaro, I recognize you, and then Councilor Leming, and then Councilor Tseng. And I please invite everyone to take their private conversations outside of the room and allow the body to conduct public business.
[Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Leming might have it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: There's an attachment to... Please take your conversations outside if you're gonna have private conversations in the chamber.
[Zac Bears]: If folks could take their private conversations out into the, into the rotunda, please. Thank you, Councilor Zari. You may continue.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarpelli. Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, then Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli. Wow.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Madam Vice President, if you would take the chair.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Well, it's been a fun one. I think when we talk about what local government is about, when we talk about democracy, when we talk about what it means to listen to the people and do what the people are asking, I think there's an honest disagreement between many of us, many of us who everyone likes to think agree on that. There's an honest disagreement about it. There's an honest disagreement about this council. Sometimes it's six to one, sometimes it's four to three, sometimes it's five to two. And I've been on the losing end of a lot of those. I disagreed with this council before I was ever elected. I came up to that podium, Councilor Scarpelli and I have talked about it, but I didn't come up and, say the council is illegitimate, and I didn't come up and say, where did you people come from? And I didn't come up and say that certain people should be allowed to make decisions and other people shouldn't. And I certainly didn't say that when people are elected to public office, that they should be forced and required and demanded to have the legitimacy of our government disrespected on a regular basis. Now, when we talk about what this council has been doing for three months now, We put forth a governing agenda in a public way. No council has ever done that before in this city. We put every item we wanted to work on for the next two years in that document and made it public. We talked about it at multiple meetings. We announced it. We said, here's everything. What was in that? A rental registry was in that. rent stabilization was in that transfer fee was in that prop two and a half was in that a new Medford High School was in that fixing the roads and sidewalks was in that everything that everyone has talked about tonight that we want to do was in that document and it passed this body unanimously. And it was put out publicly I will speak Thank you and you can wait. I'm not being rude, you're being rude. You need to have basic respect and decency for your government. These people were elected, me and these six people. You don't see me sitting here and saying, George, shut up, and allowing people to yell. Yes, please wait, thank you, please wait, thank you. Now, we did that, never been done before. We said what we wanted to do, and that's after we've campaigned and we've talked to residents. We disagree. We could sit here for three days and never take a break. And at the end of that, we could hear from everybody 50 times. There are things we are going to disagree on. That is what living in a society means. And the way that we work through those disagreements is the democratic process. We have a democratic process in this community. It's called an election. People won an election and those people are doing what they believe. I'm one of them. I know there are people who won an election in this room who disagree with me. And they say on some things, I don't know, maybe not all the time. We've disagreed at the podium before, I'll at least say. And George and I have had many a disagreement in committee. I hear him. I listen. I try to take it seriously. Sometimes I change what I think. Sometimes I make an amendment to my resolution. Sometimes we find a different answer. Sometimes we don't. We were on the opposite ends of this for two years, where I was on the end of a lot of 5-2 votes, where I lost, and I didn't go out at the end of the day and say, oh, these people, they're bad Councilors, and I don't like serving with them, and I don't think they're my friends. How many times have I gone and defended George or Rick or John or Adam to people who think they're the worst person in the world? And I say, no, I sat next to them, and they have their best intents at heart, and so do I. And sometimes we disagree. There are rules in place to allow the public business to happen. There are state laws that govern this process their city council rules, and quite frankly, cancer Collins is right, unless this council chooses, they want to remove me. State law gives me, as the chair of this body and the chair of the meeting, the ultimate authority on any public participation. If I really wanted to silence everybody, I could stand there and bully my minions, as people think they are, and say, I'll stand here and public participation's over. And you vote me out of this chair if you don't want it. And you know, my minions will do it, right? Because they just think the way that I think. And everything I say, we sit here and we put our minds into telepathy and we connect us, the six of us, and we all vote the same way. We all believe the same thing because it's a cult of personality. And that's what happens, right? I could do that if I wanted to. I don't do that because I value the public forum. I may not support this resolution tonight. You don't know that. What I can tell you is that in 2022, 6-0, the council voted on a final rules package that reduced public participation from 10 minutes to five minutes. And where was the outrage in 2022 when this council reduced from 10 to five, and now we wanna go from five to three? Because a lot of people wanna talk, and a lot of people get in touch with me and say, I'm not coming to a meeting, I can't wait till 10 p.m., I got things to do. There's a lot of people. Just because you show up here in this room, even if it's 100 to one, it doesn't mean that you're representing all the people. It just doesn't. There was a night proposal in 2022 to create a public forum that's mentioned here. Some other cities and towns do that. We didn't vote for it at the time. The more I think about it, the more I think it might be the fairest way to do this. I don't know. I like the idea of Councilor Callahan to entertain alternatives, but I'm also gonna respect if there's a vote tonight that I'm on the wrong end of, I lost. Am I gonna get furious? Am I gonna scream? Am I gonna shout? Am I gonna say that we should storm the castle and take the back of the city? And these people are just, where did they come from? And they don't care about Medford, they don't love Medford. We agree to disagree. And what people call division is disagreement. We can listen, we can hear, we can sit there for hours. And at the end of it, I know we've all experienced it in our families, with our friends, with our colleagues. We may not agree at the end of the day. What's important is that we respect the systems and structures that we have created to work through the difficulties of these decisions, the democratic process, the elections of representatives to take votes. That is how this process works. If you want to change that process, run for office. If you want to change that process, go tell the Charter Committee to change the process. If you want to change that process, there are myriad ways to petition your government for the redress of your grievances, but it does not entitle anyone, anyone to say that I can talk for as much as I want, and I can say whatever I want, and that I shouldn't have to respect, because it's actually the disrespect of the people and the institution that degrades community trust. So when we can't talk to each other across our divisions and differences, there are plenty of people who I've talked to on the phone for an hour, and we were no closer at the end of that hour than we were at the beginning, and they said, you didn't hear me, you didn't listen to me, but I'll talk. It doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind. And there's a lot of people in this room I don't think I'm ever going to get to agree with everything I believe. And I understand that. But that's what this process is about. And at the end of the day, maybe this isn't the right approach. Maybe it is. We'll see how I vote at the end of it. But that's the vision of government. We are being as transparent as we can possibly be. We are entertaining and engaging with residents in myriad ways. We are having these public comment sessions on our issues. The way that every legislative body in the history of the world works is that a proposal is initiated, it's sent to committee, and we have a discussion. We have a lot of people online said, hey, we should just have one topic meetings when there's a lot of people who are interested. There are, they're called committees. When this goes to committee, when what just went to committee rental registry, we'll have a meeting on the rental registry. We'll have another four hours. and we'll talk about it, and maybe we'll disagree, and maybe at the end of this two years, so many people will disagree with six of us, that three of us will lose, and three more people will come on, and they'll repeal what we did, or they'll try, and I welcome it. That is what democracy is, and I invite anyone to participate in good faith in the process. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We're gonna go to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: You did great. I clocked it at 2.20. We're gonna go to, and if folks, you can see, there's a little timer in the top right of the screen when I started. Gonna go to Haley Carr on Zoom. You have five minutes, Haley. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Haley. I generally wouldn't respond, but since that was pretty much about me, I'll entertain it. I'm not perplexed that people disagree with me. I know a lot of people disagree with me. Well, that whole thing was about me, actually. Thank you. So I'm taking quite a personal privilege to respond to a resident.
[Zac Bears]: Well, you did ask me to level with you, so I'm going to level with you, Haley.
[Zac Bears]: In any case, yeah, I'm not perplexed that there's disagreement. There's been disagreement for a long time. There was a Boston Globe article about people almost throwing chairs at each other across this this stage about 15 years ago. And yeah, there's disagreement in a community. And you can call it division, you can call it whatever you want. I can't actually remember all the things you want me to respond to. I know there are people in this community who don't trust me. I respect that. That's their right not to trust me. But I appreciate you bringing up the election. Yes, there was an electoral process, a campaign was run. Maybe it was new. Maybe it was innovative. Maybe people hadn't seen it before. It was successful and people were elected. We have been highly transparent as a body. And to be honest, I do, after these meetings, think about all the times that I have not held my composure when I have responded or made a face or said something when something that I feel in my heart and in my mind, ridiculous was said, and I can't hold it in. So I'm working on it. And I appreciate that comment. There are people here in this city who disagree with each other. That is what the democratic process is about. I never expect to win everybody's vote. I never expect to win anybody's trust. Everybody's trust. Anybody, any politician who says they do is lying to you. So I'm going to continue to do what I think is right. I'm going to continue to do what I think means representing the people of the city, not just the people who show up and speak in public meetings. And that's what you're going to get. And it's what I've said on every mailer and in every video and every debate and every council meeting for the last five years. And if I'm lucky, I'll be able to continue to do that for many years more. We'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Maureen on Zoom, but before I do that, when we talk about popular will, 25 individuals spoke against the rental registry. Thousands of people voted. I think we have an honest disagreement about what the definition of popular will is. Maureen, we're gonna go to you on Zoom. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: When a zoom K Lazzaro name and address for the record please you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: I think actually there's the inclusion of the form as well. That's a separate. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Jess Healy on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Hi, Jess. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jess. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: I feel like you're engaging in good faith, and I want to engage back in good faith on a couple of things really quickly, which is just to say that the rules have changed over time. This charter's been in since 1987, passed in 1986. Before then, the council appointed a city manager. There's been a variety of approaches. I personally think part of democracy is trying new things. And Thomas Jefferson had the idea of a revolution every 30 years, because things need to change with the times. And I think that's some of what we're seeing happen. in many places across the country. Just on the point of what you're saying, I think we are trying our best, and I think I would speak for every councilor here, that we are open to hearing from people about how we can do better on the housing issue. If you look at the governing agenda we put out, which hadn't been put out before, there's a number of things under there. You listed things I think you would agree with, and I would agree with. Maybe things you would agree with, I would disagree with. Maybe things I would agree with, you would disagree with. trying to get the full scope of the strategy. We are having the meetings on zoning reform to significantly look at reducing regulations and allowing more to happen in this community to advance climate goals and planning goals and walkability goals and things like that. We're also looking at things like the transfer fee because there's a political window of possibility of how the city can acquire funding I don't think it's an ideal policy, but it's not just to say that we should only implement ideal policies and like when it comes to town meeting. I've been in town meetings before, you know, there's a reason that the city incorporated in 1892 into a city we used to have a town meeting right there's places that have town meeting representative town meeting Council Manager Mayor Council, this city's charter is a mayor council and it's representative democracy so you know. I just think these are good things to debate, but I also think there's systems and structures in place. But I do think we're trying to be as transparent as we can and say that we're looking at a number of different ways to approach major challenges and trying to be as open with the community as we can by listing those things. And I personally don't think it's always, we've decided there's one specific path and we're not willing to debate details and approaches. I think that's what we wanna do and one of the reasons that we have these committee meetings. So I hope that we can get more people attending and sharing their opinions at them. Thank you. I'm gonna go to Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins, then we'll go to Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Vice President. I'm going to go to Nadine on Zoom. Nadine, name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks, Nadine, and I apologize if I actually agree with you. I was trying to make the point that there are a lot of people who don't get to talk in the meeting, so I agree with you on that. I'll go to the podium, name and address for the record, five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: We have met since last March on the budget ordinance. We just passed it at our last meeting. Not the budget. No, it created a brand new budget process.
[Zac Bears]: No, hold on a minute. Okay. You read it. I'm going to answer your question.
[Zac Bears]: It said fix the budget process and raise revenue to fund our schools. We just passed the first budget ordinance in the history of the city to fix the budget process we're starting budget meetings, April 15, two months earlier than we ever have for, and we just released a press release from the financial task force of the council leadership the school committee leadership and the mayor to discuss raising revenue to fund our schools, city services and our capital needs so literally in the last two weeks we've done exactly what that bullet point said.
[Zac Bears]: It's not, it's about $215,000 in the deficit.
[Zac Bears]: with the mayor. Yeah. In what like to raise revenue, real revenue to bring in developers to bring real if you want to put the with the mayor on it, I've had two or three financial task force meetings with Vice President Collins and the mayor. So we've also had two meetings on the zoning ordinance two minutes on the linkage for your ordinance, three meetings on the governing agenda, two meetings on budget recommendations where we requested a lot of the things you're talking about. I mean, probably 1015 if you if you count what is this council done?
[Zac Bears]: We approved two planned development districts so far this year.
[Zac Bears]: I'm pretty sure it was six.
[Zac Bears]: I was in the first fifth grade at the Brooks, and I'm a good friend of Beth Fuller.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and the building committee, and Orlando was the co-chair, Rick.
[Zac Bears]: How much were you paid?
[Zac Bears]: I would I would respectfully say that there's a lot of avenues where we're trying to do that and I would hope that we can consider all of our individual proposals and plans.
[Zac Bears]: I really hope folks applied for the building committee for the high school, we're going to have a lot of conversations coming out of the budget and the financial task force. I think we just need to consider everything on the merits, and I appreciate your input, and I hope that we can continue to do that.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. Thank you, Bill. I'm going to go to Tony Tanks on Zoom.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. I'm going to go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. Mr. Orlando, you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Orlando. I'm not going to recognize this name. I'm going to go to Ron Giovino on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ron, and the council looks forward to considering the recommendations of the Charter Study Committee. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: I was going to say it was George's moving van driver. He joked that he drove Georgia's moving van.
[Zac Bears]: But the subcommittees, the committees last as long as they need to last. So they're not just one hour. They could be five hours if they need to be.
[Zac Bears]: I have one vote.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to go to Bianca Sasso on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We're gonna go to Jennifer Yanko on Zoom. Jennifer, name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Not I, but thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I said we could talk for three days straight. We may not agree on everything. We may not get to a point of agreement. Yeah, and nothing's going to change. That's not true.
[Zac Bears]: That's how it works. Mr. Krumman, it changed tonight. The initial proposal was two minutes, now it's three minutes. It changed because people spoke.
[Zac Bears]: So it changed. Right. So there's evidence.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to school committee member and Toppa name and address for the record. Please welcome for your first time as a school committee member and congratulations.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I think we have three people who already spoken. So, have you spoken to Mr. Cassidy on this paper. All right, sorry you, you get to go first. Name and address for the record you have five minutes Mr. Cassidy.
[Zac Bears]: You have that, Mr. Clerk? I got it. All right.
[Zac Bears]: You have four minutes, 30 seconds.
[Zac Bears]: I mean, could that happen? Can we try to keep the swearing off of public access?
[Zac Bears]: Did you just say commie and B word?
[Zac Bears]: And he said it again.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Castagnetti. We'll go. And I want to be clear here. If we could try to keep second comments to two minutes, it is getting late. Mr. Fiori, name and address record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Again, I haven't responded to your email, but I might have some data on some of the previous elections I'll try to find in my sandbox. One interesting thing I've noticed, if you look at the 2005 to 2013 results, the average turnout was like 20 to 25%. And if you look at 2015 to 2023, It was 30 to 34%. And some of the interesting things I've noted blanks are way down, and usually you didn't see people on the down ballot races getting majority of votes cast, it was usually below 50% of votes cast very rarely one or two people were getting over 50% of votes cast. and that's starting to change as well. So I think some of the data and interesting facts about the election results would show that I think we're actually making improvement, and I'm hoping we can keep making improvement and getting more people involved.
[Zac Bears]: I'm gonna go to Jess Healy, who spoke before for two minutes, then we'll come back to you, former Councilor Berta. Jess, if you could, for two minutes, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I would just note, again, there's no national thing. There's an organization called Our Revolution Medford. It's made up of Medford residents. We work together as a team. If you go to ourrevolutionmedford.com, you can read the Medford People's Platform, which was created solely by Medford residents and Medford community organizations to advance a vision of Medford for all of us. So check it out. It's a local organization. I've lived here my whole life, and I care about this city deeply, along with my fellow colleagues, all of us here on the city council. Mr. Penta, if you could, two more minutes, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Because I'm as the chair at this late hour asking for people who are speaking.
[Zac Bears]: For speaking a second time against the rules of the council, Mr. Penta, allow one person to speak.
[Zac Bears]: It says five minutes one time. It doesn't say one time, it does not say one time. I would suggest you read it. That's beside the point.
[Zac Bears]: Freedom, freedom.
[Zac Bears]: Any motions on the floor.
[Zac Bears]: No, you may not.
[Zac Bears]: I just said you can't.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, Councilor Tseng thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You can go on, sir, you can go on, you can make an embarrassment of yourself, but it's me, Mr. Penta. No, you're not.
[Zac Bears]: Motion for a five minute recess. So moved. Second. Seconded by Councilors. All those in favor. Aye. Opposed. Meeting is in recess.
[Zac Bears]: So we have the motion to approve by Councilor Lazzaro as amended by Councilor Lazzaro to increase from two minutes to three minutes. and as amended by Councilor Tseng to add a 90 minute initial cap for discussion and any speakers after the 90 minutes would go for one minute each. Vice President Collins, could you take the chair? I have a B paper to propose.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Um. So one of the other things I've seen from some of the discussions online as well as some of the comments tonight is about making clear our process. So I would propose of the paper to add to rule 12 section three, uh, subsection, a new subsection subsection F, which would be referred to committee for further discussion. And there if to come on the agenda with the specific intent of going to committee for further discussion. That would then be clear and obvious to all parties reading the agenda that this is not the consideration of the proper topic, but that the topic is simply being referred to committee for further discussion. I think that would address some of the procedural issues. And I also think it is a reflection of adjusting and changing as we hear feedback about some of the new things that we're trying. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: It's since we're under consideration of the rules. It's just it would be a separate vote. So vote on this motion, it's not an amendment to this motion, it's a separate vote on changing that rule as well given what we've heard tonight about some of the rules issues around this thing I voted on before. It would be voted on first as the B paper be considered first, and then we would consider the promotion as amended by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: it would be a motion to add to rule 12 section three to create a new subsection F that would be titled refer to committee for further discussion. And it would basically create under the rules of order, a new header on the council agenda where Councilors could specifically refer, have items that would be going to the committee system for discussion in the committee, put them there instead of having them mixed in with everything else where there may be final decisions happening during the meeting. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And if I may, Madam President, we also made a change to the new committee agendas. We had had a papers and committee section, because we wanted to show everyone what is all the things that this committee is currently considering. People thought that that meant that all of them were on the agenda for that night. It actually ended up creating, in a goal for transparency, it created confusion. So we removed that, and now you can ask the clerk for it. So I think, again, as we try these new things, we are adjusting and changing as we get the feedback from the public about what helps and what doesn't.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the Council on the B paper? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve on the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by Vice President Collins on the B paper only? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The B paper is approved. On the main paper, as proposed for approval by Councilor Lazzaro, as amended by Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the Council? Councilor Callahan.
[Zac Bears]: And for the discussion by members of the council on the motion. And to be clear, that would be the motion as amended. It would be three minutes per speaker, 90 minutes at that level, and then anyone after the 90 minutes would be at one minute. So seeing no further discussion by members of the council, I'll go to the members of the public. Mr. Jones, I don't think you've spoken on this issue. Name and address for the record. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: It was referred to committee by a vote of five to two.
[Zac Bears]: The item was referred to committee for further discussion.
[Zac Bears]: A lot of folks have said that it would be better when we have an item where there's a lot of discussion, have it be the only item on the agenda.
[Zac Bears]: They're every Tuesday and Wednesday, generally.
[Zac Bears]: It's available on the city clerk's office, but 6 and 7 p.m. are the designated start times, but they can go much later than that.
[Zac Bears]: Oh, the same way every other public meeting is.
[Zac Bears]: Through all the channels that public meetings are communicated by.
[Zac Bears]: Call? Yeah, call, email, the clerk, yeah.
[Zac Bears]: They are emailed out, they're emailed out their website, they're they're published in the clerk's office, good to know there was still a newspaper, they'd be noticed in the newspaper, it would be great if we had a newspaper.
[Zac Bears]: If I received 10,000 emails or there were 10,000 people in line for public comment, I think that would be a very different story.
[Zac Bears]: I think, again, you're talking about very different scales of magnitude.
[Zac Bears]: I personally would disagree. I think the optics are that there are people who are not in the room who may hold a different opinion, who would ask us to make a different vote.
[Zac Bears]: Maybe they understand. Well, that's fine.
[Zac Bears]: Well, these are certainly not the longest meetings we've had.
[Zac Bears]: Why do you think the meetings are so long. 11 hours in June 2020 a whole Saturday was at 9am to 7pm, but that was a budget meeting probably right.
[Zac Bears]: I'll tell you why.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: And Councilor Lemang on the motion of Councilors are as amended by Councilors are seconded by Councilor Tseng and amended by Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: No. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. The motion passes. Is there a motion to take anything out of order? I know we have a couple of folks here who've been waiting a long time. 2-4-0-6-4 and 2-4-0-7-1. On the motion by Councilor Scarpelli to take papers 2-4-0-6-4 and 2-4-0-7-1, seconded by Councilor Leming. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion passes. 24-064 offered by Vice President Collins resolution to support state make polluters pay legislation, whereas this legislative session bill 8872 S481 an act establishing a climate change super fund and promoting polluter responsibility. Also known as the make polluters pay bill was filed and whereas if passed this bill would establish a climate change super fund into which the largest oil and gas companies would pay 75 billion over 25 years with each company share proportional to their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2018. And whereas oil and gas companies bear the responsibility for exacerbating the climate crisis and have consistently misrepresented the destructive impacts of fossil fuel combustion. on the global climate, and whereas climate change caused by global warming poses many serious threats to the city of Medford and its residents, including extreme heat, flooding, poor air quality, and other extreme weather, which are already impacting the Medford community, and whereas to adequately fund necessary climate adaptation and resilience projects, Medford requires funding at the scale beyond the reasonable constraints of the city's operating budget, and the passage of the proposed make polluters pay legislation in the state house would provide the means for Medford and other cities like it to adapt to climate impacts more adequately, equitably, and meaningfully, and Whereas the proposed legislation would mandate that 40% of the monies raised be allocated to projects benefiting environmental justice communities, encourage utilization of apprenticeship work programs and encourage adherence to prevailing wage laws and whereas this session the make polluters pay bill was given a study order by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources but will be reintroduced in the next legislative session and whereas the Commonwealth of Massachusetts currently does not have a plan to adequately, equitably, and meaningfully fund necessary resilience and adaptation projects in affected communities like Medford. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Medford City Council expresses its support of H872S481, an act establishing a climate change super fund and promoting polluter responsibility to build polluter accountability and fund climate resilience. Be it further resolved that the City Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Medford Legislative Delegation, as well as the House Speaker, the Senate President, and the Office of the Governor, Vice President Collins.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further comments by members of the Council? seeing none. Is there public participation on this item? We'll take folks in order. Um and Mr. Jimmy, you know if you want to speak on on another matter, we'll take you up on the public participation section of the meeting. But we'll go to the podium first. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you for your time. I'm going to go to Zoom. Ron, do you want to talk about this topic?
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I'm gonna go to Patrick Clerkin. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes. Patrick. Oh, we've lost him. All right, we'll go to the podium. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, William. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Every time we go after midnight, the first person they have to say that.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. We're going to go to Marie Izzo on Zoom. Marie, name and address for the record, please. And you have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: That's it. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please. Five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion on the motion? On the motion on the motion of Vice President Collins seconded by Councilor Tseng all those in favor. Opposed motion passes to 4.071 resolution request Mayor Superintendent and NPS finance team. Meet with the city council to discuss financial shortfalls be resolved that the mayor superintendent of schools and the NPS finance team even the city council to discuss financial shortfalls and request a letter from the superintendent. I do have a letter from the. that was forwarded to me from the finance director for Metropublic Schools. Report on the resolution of the FY 2024 budget shortfall. I appeared before the school committee on February 12th to report on the potential shortfall of 2.5 million. This is based on my first projection of what spending would be versus budget would be by year end. We began a process of reviewing spending, reviewing unencumbered funds, and identifying resource that could be utilized to ensure a balanced budget by year end. The CEO, Drew, identified the following. One in count was account was over encumbered by 265,000 due to a contract that cross fiscal years we identified spending that could be postponed to fiscal 25 the city identified a balance in the fiscal 23 school budget that could be used for any fiscal 24 expense that was charged to fiscal 23. We have $173,000 balance in the account the whole state reimbursement funds, we have a balance of 291,000 state funded circuit breaker account. We were projecting a balance in our final year of ESSER funds of $200,000, which can be used for eligible expenses currently being charged to the general fund. There is a balance in the vocational tuition revolving fund, and I targeted $200,000 from this fund to pay for vocational program teachers being charged to the general fund. I created a charge back to our school lunch program, $57,000, to recover the proportional share of natural gas and electricity used by the program. In addition, with the assistance of the city's finance director, an error was identified in the projection model, which was causing the deficit to be overestimated. After correcting this error corrected the account all the other things that were just listed the projected deficit now stands at 216,000, we will use the extra balance and other budget management initiatives to ensure we finish the year with a balanced budget, any of the identified resources that are not needed for deficit reduction and fiscal 24 are eligible to be carried forward into fiscal 25 will be carried forward attached, please find reconciliation of the identified resolution. And with that I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: We have been joined to ex officio capacity by the finance directors.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have minutes by the way? He joins the meetings.
[Zac Bears]: I just need to clarify a couple of things. Well, I agree with Councilor Scarpelli that it is disappointing that a number of significant developments did not move forward. And I disagreed with the decision to spend two years in land court fighting the glam calculation for the 40 Bs. I completely agree on that. There are a few things we have had some new growth it's not enough. I was talking to the assessor yesterday and he believes that the new growth in the fiscal 25 budget is going to be significant, whether it's significant enough to address the issues outlined. We'll see when we get the data and information, but when it comes to collaboration and quote unquote getting suckered. The financial task force was announced the day of the last budget, along with commitment to advance the budget ordinance and improve the process. There have been some, some missteps in terms of getting information, but we got the financial task force we've been meeting, and we've announced a plan for the first time ever to actually seriously consider having the voters contribute the additional funding needed to fund our schools. And that was not getting suckered. That's actually collaborative work that I was surprised and honestly pleasantly surprised to see come from the administration after what was a really difficult year and two years of budgets. But yeah, we have been meeting in the financial task force. It was announced last June. We began meeting in the fall. We've had several meetings. the release that we just put out because we finally agreed on a path forward coming around the budget. And you're going to see us going collectively and collaboratively from all branches of government to ask the voters to address the 30 years of disinvestment and financial mistakes that have led the city to this point.
[Zac Bears]: The money's there.
[Zac Bears]: And I'm just gonna again say, you were right that the first three years we didn't get anything. We had an agreement last year. She did not the first four years. He's still done the fourth budget. We made agreements. And we have the budget ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: We haven't done nothing talked.
[Zac Bears]: You know, sounds a lot like Bob Penta a couple hours ago. public participation, name and address to the record, please. You should listen yourself tonight.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Mr. Gahan. Ron or Marie, are you trying to speak on this item from Zoom? No. No. All right, thanks. I will go to the podium name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you to those questions. If you don't mind, I do have some answers. This the 225 million free cash balance is the free cash reserve right now. It hasn't been certified since the end of fiscal 23, so there isn't access to it. I don't know if the mayor intends to appropriate any of that money to serve as one time funds to fund the budget to replace one time funds such as SR and ARPA, which were a gap. this council has constantly raised with the mayor concern about the underestimating of local receipts and the goal for the use of that money, since if we were estimating it properly, we could have additional funding in the spending for the budget. The mayor has responded and her finance director has responded generally that underestimating that amount is a fiscally conservative and responsible decision in case the receipts do come under, and if they do come over, then that money goes to free cash. This council has generally disagreed with that assessment. we do not appropriate funds and only the mayor can allocate an appropriation from free cash reserves or any other one time fund reserve to support deficit issues in the budget. So that's one of the reasons that the financial task force has been exploring permanent stable funding through what two and a half override to go to our schools so that we're not looking at trying to use free cash reserves to plug holes. Thank you. Seeing no one on zoom name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.
[Zac Bears]: Well, there's there's two things. If you're talking about the stabilization fund that the mayor came to request that we create She requested that we create the account, but not that we appropriate any funds to it. So no money was appropriated. It was the creation of an account that in the future could have money appropriated to it. That would actually allow that 25 million balance we were talking about to be used year round or some portion of it if it were added to the fund, whereas currently it can only be used after certification, which is usually. six to nine months into the fiscal year, so it's not available for use. To the second question, yes, everything is audited by an independent outside auditor. You can find that on the city website. It's called the ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. There's usually a 12 to 18 month process after the conclusion of a fiscal year where the audit occurs and then the report goes out. So that is how that works.
[Zac Bears]: Circuit breaker is a technical term. There's a state circuit breaker law that's for funding special education.
[Zac Bears]: And similar with the vocation.
[Zac Bears]: No, not like an electrical circuit breaker. Yeah. So that's one of the, if you look at the, it's called the cherry sheet, but it's what we get from the state government every year. It's an allocation of state funds.